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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavioral context on top: conditional return values (progress_percent while extraction runs, narrative plus 45 attributes once complete), null semantics for company_id, and a polling cadence. This is exactly the kind of state-transition detail the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three sentences, all front-loaded and free of filler; the return-value description and the polling instruction each pull their weight. The middle sentence is dense, packing several conditional returns into one clause, which slightly hurts scannability.

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 full burden of describing returns and does so well, including the two states of the profile and the company_id null case. It does not cover error behavior (e.g., unknown or still-queued profile), which is the one remaining gap for a polling-oriented getter.

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 coverage is 100% and the single profile_id parameter is already documented in the schema, including its UUID format and origin (create_profile or list_profiles). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 ('Fetch one profile's status and detail') and scopes it to a single profile, which cleanly separates it from siblings like list_profiles and create_profile. An agent can identify what it returns without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete workflow guidance: poll every ~10 seconds after create_profile, which tells the agent exactly when this tool is the right call. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name list_profiles as the alternative for retrieving many profiles, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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