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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses two non-obvious behaviors: SSE does not announce work state changes, and a service acknowledgement is not proof of a correct result or exactly-once external execution. These are valuable caveats that shape agent expectations.

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 concise sentences front-load the core function, then add the two caveats. Every sentence contributes information without fluff.

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?

Given an output schema is present and annotations cover read-only/idempotent behavior, the description supplies the missing context: polling behavior, SSE limitation, and the acknowledgement caveat. Nothing critical is left unexplained for an agent to call it correctly.

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%; the only parameter event_id is already described as 'Root request memo ID' in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning about how to obtain or format the parameter, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: 'Read current public work state' and enumerates the exact data elements (requester, worker, recovery generation, fencing token). The 'current' qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling read_work_history without ambiguity.

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?

It gives clear when-to-use guidance: 'Poll for transitions; message SSE does not announce work state changes.' This tells the agent to use this tool for observing transitions rather than relying on SSE. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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