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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful constraint that only settled results are returned, but says nothing about error behavior for in-flight jobs, auth needs, or latency - with annotations carrying the safety profile, 3 is appropriate.

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 tight sentence with no wasted words and the key state constraint front-loaded. It is arguably too terse for a tool with a polymorphic input schema, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. However, the input schema is a three-branch anyOf with schema_version constants and a product enum, and the description offers no guidance on which reference form to supply - a gap for this level of input complexity.

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?

Effective parameter count is 0 (the anyOf schema is self-describing with const/enum values) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds nothing about job_id/product/schema_version semantics, but the schema fully documents them.

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 names a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('product result') and adds a meaningful scope qualifier ('one completed and already-settled'). However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like get_wave_job_status or get_wave_job_artifact, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

The phrase 'completed and already-settled' implies the precondition for calling this tool (the job must be finished), which is implied usage rather than explicit guidance. No alternatives are named and no when-not-to-use condition is stated.

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