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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact - that failure responses carry recovery guidance - but says nothing about job lifecycle, completion states, or latency/polling behavior.

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 short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no padding. The second sentence is terse to the point of ambiguity, but the overall size is appropriate for a simple polling tool.

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 shape, and it does so only obliquely ('duplication progress', 'failure details'). It is adequate for a one-parameter read tool but omits the linkage to duplicate_promotion and any notion of completion state.

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 0% and the single parameter job_id is documented only as an integer with minimum 1. The description never explains what job_id identifies or where the caller obtains it, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb and resource ('Read ... duplication progress') plus a scope qualifier ('account-scoped'), so an agent knows it is a status/read tool rather than a mutation. It does not, however, name or contrast itself with the sibling that actually starts the work (duplicate_promotion), so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says the job_id originates from duplicate_promotion, whether this should be polled repeatedly, or when to stop polling. The agent is given no condition that selects this tool over get_asset_status or get_promotion.

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