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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral fact that the job is in-flight ('live progress'), but says nothing about what happens once the job completes or whether the status is retained after completion.

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?

One efficient, front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and the resource. The trailing phrase 'for its card' is slightly ambiguous filler but costs little.

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 not be explained. However, for a one-parameter polling tool with zero schema coverage, the description omits the key operational detail of where job_id comes from and how long a job remains queryable, leaving it only minimally complete.

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% and the description never mentions job_id — not its format, nor where the agent obtains it (presumably from the build/edit/publish call that created the job). For a single required parameter with no schema documentation, the description should have compensated and does not.

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 clear verb ('Reports') and resource ('live progress of a WebTwizz build, edit or publish'), so the agent knows this is a status-polling tool. It does not differentiate itself from the nearby get-github-status sibling, which an agent could plausibly confuse with this one.

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 gives no when-to-use context, no indication that it should be polled after kicking off a build/edit/publish, and no alternatives or conditions for stopping. The word 'live' hints at polling but leaves all guidance to inference.

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