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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces the safe observational framing while adding genuinely new context about the caller. However, it does not say what happens to the reported data, whether calls are fire-and-forget, or whether failures need handling. The word "Records" sits in mild tension with readOnlyHint but reads as status reporting rather than a deliberate claim, so it is not a contradiction.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, front-loading the primary function and then the caller restriction. The trailing inputs list is compact and each clause earns its place.

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 low-complexity telemetry tool with no output schema and only three parameters, the definition covers purpose, caller, and parameter meaning adequately. The remaining gap is that a caller gets no information about expected response or what status values mean downstream, though this matters little for a fire-and-forget report.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full explanatory burden and does so: it maps all three parameters to meaning and gives the allowed status values ("loaded or failed"). It falls short of full marks because "kind" is described only as "the type of result shown" with no example values, and query's object shape is left undefined.

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 ("Records whether the WhatJobs results view finished loading") plus the reason it exists ("so loading problems can be found"). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from every sibling analytics tool by declaring it is "Called by the results view itself, not by the assistant."

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 an explicit negative routing rule: the assistant should not invoke this tool, the results view does. That single exclusion is the only guidance needed here since none of the sibling tools are substitutes, so there is no ambiguity left to infer.

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