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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds substantial behavioral detail: the polymorphic return (full HTML on completion vs. {"status":"pending"}) and the recommended polling interval. That is exactly the runtime behavior an agent cannot infer from the 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by return behavior and the polling instruction. No sentence is redundant.

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 full burden of explaining return values and does so (HTML vs. pending status), plus the polling cadence needed to use the tool correctly. Nothing essential 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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains that jobId comes from start_website. The description reinforces the origin of the ID but adds no format or validation detail beyond that baseline.

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 ('Fetch the result of a start_website job') and immediately ties it to the sibling that creates the job. The two possible return shapes (HTML vs. pending JSON) make the tool's contract unambiguous.

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 clear operating instructions: poll again in ~20–30s and keep polling until HTML is returned, which tells the agent exactly how to drive the async loop. It implies the prerequisite (a start_website jobId) but never explicitly states what to do if the job failed or whether calling before start_website is invalid.

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