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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: bearer-key authentication, no charge, specific error codes, and return projection. It does not describe polling or terminal-state behavior, keeping it just below the top score.

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-load purpose and usage, then add auth/cost and error details. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 covering return shape and rich annotations covering safety, the description completes the operational picture: when to call it, authentication, cost, and error conditions. Nothing essential is missing for a one-parameter read tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter's schema description already states that the job id comes from hydracept_run or hydracept_submit_job. The description only repeats that job_id identifies the job, adding no format or handling detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Read one job's current status') and explicitly distinguishes itself from hydracept_get_receipt, hydracept_jobs_find, and the submit/run flow. An agent can identify the correct tool without opening the schema.

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?

Provides explicit sequencing: call after hydracept_submit_job or hydracept_run with wait=false, use hydracept_get_receipt after success, and use hydracept_jobs_find when the job id is unknown. Alternatives and conditions are fully specified.

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