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 genuine value by disclosing that this is a polling endpoint to be re-invoked while status is running, but it omits status values, expected wait/backoff, and whether results are ephemeral.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the polling instruction. No filler, and every clause carries information.

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-value detail is not the description's burden. Given a single-parameter polling tool with readOnly annotations, the description covers purpose, input provenance, and re-invocation behavior adequately.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented job_id. It does add provenance meaning ("the job id it gave you"), clarifying where the value comes from, but gives no format, length, or validity guidance beyond that, leaving a gap at 0% coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Returns the current state of a check started earlier") and identifies the input source ("the job id it gave you"). This distinguishes it from the check_* siblings, which presumably start checks, but it never names those siblings explicitly, so the contrast is inferred rather than stated.

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 real usage context: call it with the job id produced by an earlier check, and re-call it "after a short wait while the status is still running," which conveys polling semantics. It stops short of naming the specific sibling tools that create job ids or stating any exclusion, so it falls just below the explicit when/when-not bar.

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