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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: it is only for already-running operations, it reports feed build states (queued, building, ready, failed), and it clarifies when the feed is final. There is no contradiction with 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?

The description is compact but information-dense. Every sentence earns its place: the first scopes the tool and names alternatives, the second details return fields and the completion condition. It is front-loaded and not padded.

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 zero-parameter read-only status tool with no output schema, this description is complete: it states what is returned, when to poll, the state values, the finality condition, and the relevant sibling alternative. No critical context is missing for an agent to call it 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. Schema coverage is effectively 100%, and the description appropriately avoids adding irrelevant parameter details.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Only for checking on a match or feed rebuild that is already running.' It clearly states what the tool returns—live run status, feed counts, and feed_build state—and distinguishes itself from list_matching_jobs.

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 gives explicit context for when to use the tool: after upload_cv, update_targeting, or refresh_matches. It also names the alternative list_matching_jobs for finding or showing jobs, and explains the polling condition until feed_build.feed_state.state is ready.

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