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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds zero behavioral context such as what the status response contains or polling expectations, and it does not contradict the 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?

It is short, but wastes the limited space by duplicating the same endpoint path twice with no added information. The operation ID and describe_operation pointer are the only non-redundant content.

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?

There is no output schema, 0% parameter description coverage, and a status-polling tool whose return values and lifecycle are entirely unexplained. The description is far too thin for an agent to call this confidently over adjacent siblings.

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% for 2 parameters (query and params.jobId). The description only echoes the :jobId path segment and adds nothing about the meaning of jobId, its format, or the purpose of the query object.

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 is essentially a verbatim repetition of the endpoint path twice, which merely restates the tool name/title. While the path implies 'get AI extract status by jobId', it provides no differentiation from close siblings like get_ai_extract_progress_by_jobId or get_ai_extract_result_by_jobId.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus the progress or result endpoints for the same jobId. The only actionable pointer is that describe_operation provides native request schemas, which is a generic hint, not usage guidance.

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