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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it waits up to wait_seconds, requires repeated calls while status is 'running', and notes that jobs expire 15 minutes after finishing. These go beyond the annotations and inform the agent about timing and lifecycle, which is critical for a polling tool.

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 core action and scope. The polling behavior and expiration are stated succinctly. Every clause carries necessary information; there is no fluff or redundancy. It is highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 polling tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational aspects: when to call, how long to wait, and the need to poll repeatedly. It also mentions expiration. The only missing element is error handling or failure behavior, but the tool's purpose is simple and the description provides enough context for an agent to use it correctly. Given the simplicity, it is fairly complete.

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 0%, so the description must clarify parameter meaning. It explains wait_seconds as the maximum wait duration and implies job_id is the identifier from a build_shift_roster call. This provides enough semantic grounding for both parameters. However, it does not specify the format or expected values of job_id, and the description could be more explicit about how wait_seconds interacts with the polling loop, but it is sufficient.

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 states a specific verb ('fetch') and a clear resource ('result of a build_shift_roster job'), and it explicitly narrows the scope to jobs that returned status 'running'. This differentiates it from siblings: build_shift_roster creates jobs, while get_shift_example and list_shift_examples deal with examples. The purpose is unambiguous and distinct.

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 clearly specifies when to use the tool: when a build_shift_roster job is running, and it instructs to poll by calling again while the status remains 'running'. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the condition is explicit enough. The absence of alternative references is a minor gap given the clear context.

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