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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the useful context that the tool reports status and progress by job id, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as job lifecycle states or failure conditions.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose and the key identifier without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 the tool's low complexity, one parameter with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an existing output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. No critical information appears to be 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?

The input schema already documents the single parameter job_id at 100% coverage, including its origin from vri_bulk_lookup or vri_submit_job. The description merely repeats 'by job id' and adds no new semantic information beyond the schema.

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 clearly identifies the resource (a VRI bulk lookup job) and the operation (retrieving its status and progress). It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from siblings like vri_submit_job or vri_bulk_lookup, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

The description states that the job id is returned by vri_bulk_lookup or vri_submit_job, which clearly implies this tool is for checking status after a job has been submitted. It provides clear context but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state 'use this when...'.

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