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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return payload (progress stages: reading, sorting, designs, done, plus a private link), which is real value beyond the schema, but says nothing about whether the link expires, what happens for invalid ids, or whether the operation is a safe read.

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 compact sentence with the key information front-loaded and no filler. The trade-off is mild terseness in the opening clause, which reads awkwardly rather than wastefully.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description does cover the return shape (status stage and link), which is the main gap it needed to fill. It falls short on error/edge behavior and on the polling relationship to the sibling tools.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline would be 3; the description adds nothing parameter-specific but nothing is needed. It stays a notch above baseline because the referenced id source (returned by start_website_check) is already captured in the schema.

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 the resource (a website check's progress) and what it returns (a stage plus a private link), with the stages enumerated. It implies the read counterpart to start_website_check, though it never names that sibling explicitly and the phrasing "How far a website check is" is slightly ungrammatical.

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 poll-after-start tool, and the schema's id description references start_website_check. There is no explicit statement of when to call it (e.g., after starting a check), how often to poll, or what to do instead if the id is unknown.

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