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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about asynchronous job status and its tie to publishing, which is useful but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as polling behavior, latency, or potential errors. This matches the calibration example where annotations carry the safety disclosure and the description adds some context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and object. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the tool, the second gives a concrete usage example. There is no wasted text or repetition of obvious details.

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 tool has a single parameter, an output schema, and clear annotations. The description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and provides a specific example of a job ID source. No significant information is missing; the description is fully adequate for this level of complexity.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, with a description for jobId: 'Id of an asynchronous job, as returned by kenwea.marketplace.publish.' The tool description repeats this same information ('such as the one kenwea.marketplace.publish returns') without adding new meaning. With full schema coverage, a baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Read the status of an asynchronous job.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like kenwea.scale.status by specifying 'job' and gives a concrete example ('such as the one kenwea.marketplace.publish returns') that ties it to a particular use case.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'This is how you find out whether a publish succeeded.' This implies usage after submitting an asynchronous job. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations where a different tool should be used, so it falls slightly short of the highest bar.

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