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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the precondition that the jobId must already exist and names the returned facets, but since an output schema exists those field names are partly redundant. No mention of polling cadence or what 'frozen checks' implies behaviorally.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler: the operation and its return facets come first, the routing exclusion second. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only status tool with an output schema and clear annotations, this covers what to pass and when not to use it. The remaining gap is that it does not tie itself to the job lifecycle siblings (job_start, job_approve, job_cancel), so an agent must guess the sequencing.

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 0% for the single jobId parameter, which the schema types only as a bare string. The description compensates slightly by qualifying it as an 'existing jobId', implying it must originate from a job creation/approval sibling, but it never says which tool produces that id.

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-less but concrete operation: retrieve completion-loop status for an existing jobId, and names the payload fields (state, frozen checks, next_action). This distinguishes it from plan_task, though the term 'completion-loop' is internal jargon an agent may not decode without prior context.

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?

Explicitly excludes catalog/SEO goals and routes that case to plan_task, which is a real alternative among siblings. It never states the positive trigger — e.g. that it is called after job_start/job_declare_action to poll progress — so the when-to-use half is left to inference.

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