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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the name, such as whether status is polled, what states exist, or whether the operation requires a specific project context.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded, but the second sentence mostly repeats the first. It is concise yet under-informative, with redundancy rather than added value.

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?

For a status-check tool with no output schema, the description should explain what the returned status contains and how to interpret progress. It does not, leaving the agent without enough context to use the result meaningfully.

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?

The description does not mention the wordlist ID or projectId parameters at all. Schema description coverage is reported as 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameter meaning, but it provides no additional semantic guidance.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get embedding status' / 'Get the current embedding progress status for a wordlist'), but the second sentence largely restates the tool name. It does not distinguish this from sibling tools like wordlist-retrieve or explain what an embedding status actually includes.

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 tool versus wordlist-retrieve, wordlist-list, or other wordlist operations. The description says what it does but not when an agent should choose it.

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