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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the one behavior annotations cannot express: the call blocks 'up to a minute' waiting for completion, which materially affects how an agent should sequence and time out. It omits what happens on timeout/failure, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and the acquisition path front-loaded before the blocking-behavior caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information an agent needs.

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?

The title's payload enumeration compensates for the absent output schema, so an agent knows what a finished job yields. The remaining gap is the failure/timeout path and retry semantics, which are unstated for a blocking call. Otherwise complete for a one-parameter tool with full annotation coverage.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines jobId and its provenance. The description's 'Call it with the jobId' and 'jobId returned by the tool that started the job' restate rather than extend the schema. Baseline 3 is the correct ceiling here.

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 and resource ('fetches a job ... started by another tool'), and the title enumerates the concrete payloads (brief, draft, image, FAQs, key points, audit, link plan). This makes the async-retrieval role unambiguous against the create_* siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly to complete the differentiation the rubric requires for a 5.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Call it with the jobId when a tool answered "still working"'. That is a clear, actionable when-to-use rule tied to observable state rather than guesswork. It stops short of a 5 by not naming the alternative path (e.g. what to do if the job never finishes) or stating explicit exclusions.

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