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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it discloses non-obvious behavior: the archiv_url is a signed https link that loads without a login, expires after 24 hours, and can be refreshed by calling again, plus what result.fehlend contains. These are exactly the traits an agent could not derive from the schema or annotations.

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 tight sentences: purpose and input first, status lifecycle second, return-value semantics last. No filler, and the most important operational facts are front-loaded.

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 explaining return values and does so (archiv_url semantics, expiry, refresh, fehlend). Status values and input provenance are also covered, leaving nothing an agent needs missing.

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 single parameter is already documented there; the description only adds the provenance of job_id (returned by lab_dossier). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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: polling a dossier job by job_id, with the originating tool (lab_dossier) named. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the many sibling job/status tools (lab_get_job, lab_job_status, lab_batch_status), so an agent must infer which poller applies.

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?

Clear context for use: it is the poller for a job started by lab_dossier, and the enumerated status values tell the agent when to keep polling versus stop. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating exclusions, so it is context-rich but not fully routing guidance.

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