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

Beyond readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, the description discloses the blocking wait semantics (default 25, hard cap 28 seconds), the 24-hour job-id lifetime, and the three possible outcomes (report, answer, or 'processing' again). It also flags that addresses and answer text originate outside the system, are marked x-untrusted, and may contain arbitrary text — a genuine injection-risk warning absent from the annotations.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, then wait semantics, lifetime, and the security caveat. Every sentence carries information; the lone filler is the slightly redundant 'The result is data about a property.'

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 an output schema present, return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still summarizes the three outcome states that matter for control flow. Combined with polling timeouts, job lifetime, and the untrusted-content warning, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: wait_seconds gets its default and, importantly, an upper bound of 28 that the schema does not state, and job_id gets both provenance (from the two analysis tools) and a 24-hour validity window. It stops short of saying what happens if wait_seconds exceeds 28 or what a malformed job_id produces.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Check an analysis or question ... handed back as processing') and ties it explicitly to the two siblings that produce such jobs, analyze_property and ask_about_property. An agent can tell instantly that this is the polling tool rather than a fresh analysis call.

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 gives a clear trigger condition: use it when a sibling returned 'processing,' including what to do when it returns 'processing' again. It does not address boundaries against remaining siblings such as get_report, nor does it state when not to poll, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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