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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — nothing about whether the progress is polled, what state it reports, or how a job id is obtained.

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?

Short, but the first two sentences are byte-identical duplicates of the route, and the 'Operation ID' string is internal noise rather than information. Not front-loaded with anything an agent can act on.

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?

This is a progress-polling endpoint on an AI job with a nested, wholly undocumented schema and no output schema, yet the description explains none of the return shape or polling semantics. Pointing at describe_operation is the only completeness gesture and it leaves a significant gap for a tool an agent would need to poll 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across two free-form objects (query and an empty params), so the schema explains nothing. The description does not compensate at all — it only redirects to describe_operation, leaving the agent to make a second call to learn anything about inputs.

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 merely repeats the HTTP route 'GET /api/ai/find-changes/progress' twice, which is a restatement of the tool name rather than a plain-language statement of what the tool does. It never says in words that this returns the progress/status of an AI find-changes job, nor differentiates it from siblings like get_ai_find_changes_full_abstract_jobs or get_ai_extract_progress_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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the many AI find-changes siblings. The only directional hint is 'describe_operation provides native request schemas', which points to a schema-discovery tool rather than explaining when this tool applies.

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