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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description still adds real context the annotations do not carry — that the call is free, that it can long-poll up to 25 seconds, and that `data` is populated only once the job completes. It stops short of describing failure/partial job states.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences that lead with the most decision-relevant facts (cost, what it returns, polling behavior) and waste little. The 'wait_seconds waits up to 25 seconds' clause restates the schema, a minor 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, return values need not be enumerated, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description supplies the missing operational context (cost, long-poll, completion semantics). Only the handling of unfinished or failed jobs is left unaddressed for a simple 3-parameter reader.

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 `view`, `job_id`, and `wait_seconds` are already fully documented, including the 25-second cap. The description's note about `wait_seconds` duplicates the schema rather than adding format or edge-case meaning, 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 and resource: retrieves the status of an `enrich_profiles` job, and adds that completed jobs carry profiles in `data`. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, none of which deal with async job polling, though it does not explicitly name the producing tool as a routing cue.

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 implied rather than stated: mentioning the job is an `enrich_profiles` job and that `wait_seconds` waits for completion telegraphs the poll-after-enrich pattern, and 'Free' hints at cost. But there is no explicit when-to-use, no guidance on the non-blocking (wait_seconds=0) vs long-poll choice, and no reference to the tool that starts the job.

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