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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the authentication requirement, the read-only nature, and the lifecycle states (queued, working, completed, failed) plus availability of a result. It stops short of describing polling cadence, rate limits, or how long results persist, which leaves a small gap for a polling endpoint.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then routing guidance. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover the return shape; it names the four possible states and mentions an optional result, which is enough to set expectations for a status poll. Minor gaps remain around result payload shape and polling behavior, but nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool is missing.

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%, so job_id's origin, format, and ownership scoping are already documented in the schema. The description restates that the id comes from submit_paid_machine_job without adding syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Authenticated, read-only polling for a previously submitted paid machine job') and enumerates the states it returns. It explicitly distinguishes itself from submit_paid_machine_job and quote_paid_machine_job, so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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?

Gives the exact precondition (use the job_id returned by submit_paid_machine_job) and names the alternative for a different need ('use quote_paid_machine_job before submission, not this tool, when you only need a price estimate'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are spelled out.

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