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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the progress is 'live', implying fresh status rather than a cached snapshot, but says nothing about what statuses are returned, whether job_ids expire, or how unknown ids behave.

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 with the verb and resource up front and no filler. It is efficient, though the trailing 'for its card' phrase adds ambiguity rather than 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 values need no explanation, but the description still omits essential context for a one-param status-polling tool: the origin of job_id and the polling lifecycle. An agent would not know how to obtain the id without inspecting other 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 0% for the single required job_id, and the description never mentions it — not where it comes from (the initiating build/edit/publish call), its format, or what happens if it is stale. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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: reports live progress of a build, edit or publish job. The scope ('for its card') is vague but the core action is clear enough to distinguish it from siblings like stop-build or get-github-status.

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?

No guidance on when to call it versus alternatives, no mention that it is a polling tool invoked after starting a build/edit/publish, and no indication of when to stop polling. The agent must infer the entire workflow from the name alone.

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