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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. Beyond those, the description adds genuinely new context: no cost impact ("Free to call"), the required read:results scope, and the state-dependent return (results_url only once completed). Missing only rate-limit or polling-interval guidance to reach 5.

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 tight sentences, zero filler. The return payload is front-loaded before the operational constraints, so an agent skimming gets the primary value immediately.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value and does so precisely, enumerating the fields and the conditions under which results_url appears. Auth scope and cost are also covered, leaving nothing essential unstated for a one-parameter status tool.

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 single job_id parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including its link back to pingvalid_submit_bulk_job. The description adds no format, bounds, or lineage detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (poll), resource (bulk validation job), and enumerates exactly what comes back: progress percent, per-verdict counts, accumulated cost, results_url. The mention of results_url as the NDJSON pointer implicitly distinguishes it from pingvalid_get_job_results, which fetches the payload itself.

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?

"Poll" implies the usage pattern (call repeatedly until complete, then fetch results), and "Free to call" hints that frequent polling is acceptable. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over pingvalid_get_job_results, nor does it say anything about when not to call it or recommended polling cadence.

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