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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's burden is lower. It adds only the "beta" scoping constraint; it says nothing about whether status is terminal, whether the call must be repeated to observe completion, or what happens for a nonexistent/expired job_id.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a job-status tool rather than genuine conciseness.

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?

A one-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and a readOnly annotation is nearly self-explanatory, but there is no output schema and the description never indicates what the returned status values are or how to interpret them, which is the core question an agent has when calling a status endpoint.

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 100% and the single parameter is already documented as "Milewise job id returned by milewise.post_job," which is the key linkage. The description adds no further semantics (no format, range, or validity notes), 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 verb and resource: "Check the status of a Milewise job." The phrase "created through the beta" narrows the scope to beta-created jobs, but the description never names or contrasts with the obvious sibling (milewise.post_job, which produces the job_id it consumes), leaving differentiation implicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the follow-up to milewise.post_job because the schema says the job_id comes from that tool. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of polling cadence or what to do if the job is unknown.

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