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

Annotations already mark this read-only, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavior: the full state machine (Queued/Processing/Completed/Failed), a Hebrew progress line during Processing, and the completion payload. It omits what a Failed result contains or whether errors are returned in-band, which keeps it from a 5.

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, then timing guidance. Every clause carries information, including the state list and the polling cadence.

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, so the description correctly carries the return-value burden (completion ids and site link, progress text). For a polled read-only status tool it is nearly complete, with only failure semantics and dual-parameter precedence unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema descriptions already identify the origin of jobId and ticket, so the description adds only a restatement of which identifier family each covers. It doesn't say which wins if both are supplied, so baseline 3 is right.

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?

Names the exact resource (upload ticket or job id) and the exact outputs (status states, mortgageId, miniAppId, site link). It is distinguishable from siblings like create_upload_ticket and generate_comparison_dashboard, which produce the identifiers this tool consumes.

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 every ~15 s and expect a run of 1–3 minutes, and the schema ties each parameter to the sibling tool that produces it. It doesn't state what to do on Failed or whether to stop polling, but the usage context is clear.

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