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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by enumerating the result states, including non-terminal ones like 'still waiting', which signals that the command may be asynchronous and that polling may be needed. It does not describe auth or rate limits, but the added state model is substantive.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The possible outcomes are listed compactly and directly after the core purpose, so the agent gets both the function and the result vocabulary 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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately compensates by enumerating the status values an agent might receive. Combined with the annotations and the fully described single parameter, this is close to complete. A minor gap is that it does not say whether 'still waiting' means the agent should poll again, but overall it is sufficient for a simple read-only status check.

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%, and the schema already explains that the parameter is 'The command id another tool returned.' The description reinforces that the command comes from another tool, but it adds no syntax, format, or example detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a clear verb-and-resource: it reports what happened to a command. It also enumerates the possible outcomes (done, refused, too old, run moved, not found, still waiting), which sharpens the purpose. It does not differentiate against specific siblings by name, but the phrase 'one of the other tools sent' situates it within the async command workflow.

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 explicit: the tool is for checking a command that another tool sent. There is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance, no mention of when not to use it, and no named alternative. An agent can infer the polling use case, but the definition does not spell it out.

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