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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered and the description needn't restate them. The description does add real context beyond them: the job must have been started by the same API key (an ownership/auth constraint) and the response includes both status and result. It stops short of stating behavior for unknown/expired job ids or whether results are retained after completion, which is the meaningful remaining 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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the routing/polling detail that would make the sentence more useful without much added length.

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 getter with a full input schema, an output schema covering the returned status/result, and rich annotations, this is close to sufficient. The one thing an agent still cannot resolve from the definition is the boundary against webanto_get_operation and webanto_get_operation_result, which are the nearest alternative tools.

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 100% and there is a single required job_id already documented as "Identifier of a job started by this API key," so the description adds no syntax, format, or constraint beyond the schema — it largely echoes the same ownership scoping. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries this dimension.

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 uses a specific verb ("Read") plus a precise resource ("status and result of a job"), and adds the clarifying example "such as an enrichment," so an agent knows what kind of object a job is. The gap is sibling differentiation: the tool list contains webanto_get_operation and webanto_get_operation_result, and nothing here says whether a "job" is the same thing as an "operation" or which one to call for async work.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase "a job this API key started" hints that this is the polling/retrieval endpoint after a job-creating call, but it never says "call this repeatedly until status is terminal" or when to prefer webanto_get_operation_result. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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