Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false); the description adds cost (free), the delivery SLA (24h, usually same day), output size (50–1500 words, ~500 default), source-link guarantees, and the exact return shape including the nested result object. That is substantial disclosure beyond structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Compact and front-loaded: the free/cost signal leads, then what it checks, then timing, then the return payload. Every clause carries information an agent needs to decide and call, with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description does the work of explaining the return payload (status, dueBy, result{...}), which is exactly right. It leaves minor gaps: no enumeration of possible status values or guidance on polling cadence while a job is pending.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the id parameter is already documented as the job id returned by brief, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds only a marginal clarification that the id may also come from deep_brief, which is slightly more than the schema states but not a meaningful expansion.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (a brief ordered via brief/deep_brief), which cleanly separates it from the ordering siblings. An agent can tell immediately this is the polling/status counterpart to brief and deep_brief.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It says the brief must have been ordered with brief or deep_brief, which establishes the precondition for use, and gives the delivery window as context. It does not explicitly say whether to poll repeatedly, how often, or what to do while status is pending, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.