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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by explicitly stating it is for a 'private' training job and that the tool is meant for polling (implying it is non-mutating and safe to call repeatedly, with a rate hint). No contradictions found.

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 two sentences with zero waste. All information is relevant and front-loaded: first sentence states the tool's purpose and scope, second adds a crucial usage constraint. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given it has an output schema (so return structure is documented), only 1 required parameter with clear purpose, and annotations already cover safety, the description covers all necessary ground. It explains what the tool does, how to use it (polling with rate limit), and distinguishes it from siblings. No gaps remain.

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 0%, meaning the description must compensate. It does not describe the 'jobId' parameter explicitly, but the tool's purpose ('check one training job') strongly implies jobId identifies which job. With only one required parameter, the context is sufficient. A brief clarification of what jobId looks like would merit a 5.

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 uses a specific verb ('check'), states a clear resource ('one private NiceVois training job'), and explicitly lists what it retrieves ('stage, completed epochs, ETA, and artifact readiness'). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_training_job or list_training_jobs.

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?

The description explicitly tells when to use this tool ('to check one training job') and provides proactive usage guidance ('poll reasonably; do not call more often than every 15 seconds'). This helps the agent avoid misuse or excessive calls.

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