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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: declares read-only, states jobs are retained for 1 hour, and prescribes a polling cadence, which is exactly the runtime context an agent needs. It does not say what happens after expiry or whether errors surface in the result, leaving a small gap.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then retention, then polling behavior. No filler and nothing buried.

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 read-only two-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, lifecycle (1-hour retention) and polling pattern. Minor gaps remain around the returned payload shape and post-expiry behavior, but nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is 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 coverage is 50%: only `id` is documented (agent UUID from list_agents), while `job_id` has no schema description. The description partially compensates by tying the job to deep_scan_agent / generate_agent_script, but never clarifies where job_id comes from or how it relates to `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 and resource: returns status and result for a job produced by deep_scan_agent / generate_agent_script. Naming the two producer tools disambiguates it from list_agent_jobs and from the async starters, so an agent can pick it 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 explicit operational guidance — poll every 10-20 s while status is "running" — plus the originating calls that create the job_id. It lacks an explicit exclusion (e.g. 'use list_agent_jobs to enumerate jobs'), so it falls short of 5.

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