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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses key behavioral traits: the marker expires after 30 minutes, 'failed' means the kit was not written and gives failed_step, and 'done' includes specific arrays (detected/skipped/errors/diff/left_unchanged). This adds significant operational context not available in the annotations alone.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a compact pipe-separated list for status details. Every sentence adds necessary information with no redundancies or filler.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly covers return behavior: statuses, payload contents for 'done', failure details for 'failed', and the expiration timer. This is complete for an async status poll tool with a single parameter.

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 only parameter `ingest_id` is fully documented in the schema with the same meaning as in the description ('The ingest_id returned by niche_brand_kit_ingest'). The description adds no additional semantic value beyond confirming this association, so the baseline of 3 applies given 100% schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb+resource: 'Poll the result of an async niche_brand_kit_ingest.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling `niche_brand_kit_ingest` by explicitly referencing that async process as the context for this status polling tool.

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?

It provides clear usage context: 'Pass the `ingest_id` it returned' and explains the statuses to guide the polling loop ('ingesting' keep polling, 'done' response, 'failed' kit not written). It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or alternatives, but given the tool's specific role, the context is strong enough for a 4.

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