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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: the terminal states to poll for, the polling interval, and that the result only appears once completed. That is strong added context, though it does not discuss failure payloads or error handling.

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, zero filler: identity plus origin tools first, then the actionable polling protocol. Every clause earns its place and the critical timing guidance is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not the description's job, and the annotations cover the safety profile. What remains — what the tool returns conceptually, which jobs it serves, and how to poll them — is fully covered.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only partially does — it implies jobId originates from one of the listed starter tools but never describes the jobId/organizationId format or scoping. The parameter names are largely self-explanatory, so a minimum-viable 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb+resource ('status and ... result of a background job') and enumerates the exact producer tools (discover_brands, suggest_brand_names, discover_keywords, discover_prompts, start_auto_clustering) that create such jobs. An agent can distinguish this poller from all other get_* siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use cadence ('poll it every few seconds until status is "completed" or "failed"') plus an explicit when-not instruction ('do not start the job again while it is pending or running'). Both the loop condition and the anti-pattern are stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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