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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it reports progress while a search is ongoing and matched roles with reasons once complete. This clarifies the two-phase behavior, which is not deducible from the annotations. It does not describe edge cases like error handling or timeouts, but it adds meaningful transparency.

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?

The description is extremely brief, but it is not a complete sentence ('Progress of a search, and the matched roles...'). It front-loads the core purpose and uses no unnecessary words. However, the fragmentary grammar and lack of a clear verb slightly reduce clarity, so it is concise but not perfectly structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 optional parameter, no nested objects, and an output schema), the description adequately conveys the tool's function. Annotations cover read-only and idempotent behavior, and the output schema likely documents return details. The main missing context is a clearer statement of when to call it, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 for parameters is 100%; the run_id parameter is fully described in the schema including that it is optional and can be omitted for the most recent run. The description text itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 title 'Check a search' and description 'Progress of a search, and the matched roles with the reason each was picked once it finishes' clearly identify a resource (search) and action (check/status). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like start_job_search and quick_job_search by focusing on examining an existing search's progress and results rather than initiating one.

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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be called after start_job_search or quick_job_search, nor does it exclude other scenarios. The only usage context comes from the schema's parameter description, not from the description itself.

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