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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does state the HTTP method, that the request happens once, and the conditional retry behavior. It doesn't cover errors, auth, or terminal conditions, but the disclosed read-only polling loop is the key behavioral trait.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler: the action is front-loaded and the conditional next step is stated after it. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a one-parameter endpoint with a response schema available, the description gives the core request and polling contract. It omits non-poll nextAction values and when to stop polling, but an agent can correctly invoke and continue polling based on this text.

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?

The schema offers only a job_id string with 0% description coverage, and the description maps job_id into the URL path ({jobId}) and relates it to the status/poll response. It doesn't detail format or source of job_id, but enough meaning is added for the single obvious parameter.

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?

Description names a concrete operation and resource: GET /v1/jobs/{jobId} for job status, with an explicit poll loop. It is clear on its own, though it never names sibling tools like hydracept_job_inspect, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 clear when-to-poll guidance ('if nextAction is poll, wait pollAfterSeconds and call again'), which is actionable. It doesn't state exclusions or alternative tools, but the endpoint/tool name make the primary use case evident.

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