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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by enumerating the lifecycle states and prescribing a ~5s polling cadence, which prevents hammering the endpoint; it does not say which states are terminal or whether counts appear only on completion.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the single operational instruction. No filler, nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 single-parameter polling tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, this is nearly sufficient: purpose, states, and cadence are all present. A brief note on terminal states (stop polling on completed/failed/cancelled) or what 'counts' contains would close the remaining gap.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it fully at 100% coverage, including the provenance hint ('from start_search or enrich_domains'). The description adds no additional meaning about job_id format or validity, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (a search or enrichment job) and exactly what it returns (status and counts), plus enumerates the possible states: queued, running, completed, failed, cancelled. That enumeration implicitly separates it from get_results, which would carry the payload rather than the status.

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 concrete operational guidance — poll roughly every 5 seconds — which tells the agent both that this is a polling tool and how aggressively to call it. It does not name an alternative for retrieving output (e.g. get_results once complete), so it stops short of full when-to-use/when-not guidance.

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