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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the key behavioral trait that the tool does NOT render a UI and that its payload matches list_jobs, plus the polling interval. This goes beyond the annotations, providing essential context for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 short paragraphs plus an args line, front-loaded with the critical warning 'Do not call this from the agent.' It efficiently conveys the purpose, behavior, and parameter constraint without redundancy.

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 an output schema present, the description still covers the return payload equivalence to list_jobs, the non-UI nature, and the usage constraint. An agent has everything needed to know when to avoid this tool and what it returns.

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 schema only defines task_tokens as an array of strings with no description. The description adds meaning by stating these are job IDs, to be provided most recent first, and capped at 20. This is crucial for correct usage.

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 states a specific action ('Poll job rows for the jobs card') and explicitly distinguishes it from list_jobs by noting it does not render a widget. It also tells the agent not to call it, which clarifies its intended usage.

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 explicitly instructs agents not to call this tool ('Do not call this from the agent') and directs them to list_jobs for showing or refreshing the card. It also describes the internal polling cadence (every 5s), making usage clear.

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