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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it usefully discloses an ownership/authorization scope and terminal-vs-nonterminal status semantics. It omits error behavior, retry cadence, and — critically with no output schema — what a completed result actually contains.

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?

Front-loaded and short: ownership and status semantics come first, then the polling directive. The final fragment 'No inference' is telegraphic and does not clearly resolve to a rule, which costs a point.

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?

A polling/read tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to explain the result payload and what to do on error; neither is covered. The status vocabulary ('uncertain') is introduced but never explained, leaving an agent guessing how to interpret and act.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage; the schema only supplies 'string/uuid'. The description implies job_id identifies 'this same job' for polling but adds no meaning about its origin, scope, or validity beyond that.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: reading a job scoped to the authenticated client. However, the name says 'result' while the description says 'job', and it never distinguishes this from the sibling get_status, so an agent cannot tell which to call from the text alone.

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?

Gives in-context polling guidance ('Poll this same job; do not duplicate an uncertain message') and warns that pending/processing/uncertain is not completion. It never states when to use this instead of get_status or get_export_part, and the term 'uncertain' is left undefined.

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