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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes safety, so the description only needs to add context. It usefully says the response includes blockers and recommended next steps, but omits behavior for nonexistent or completed jobs, and says nothing about permissions or response shape.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the primary outcome. It is compact, though 'what to do next' is somewhat vague for a status tool and no concrete detail follows it.

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 tool with no output schema, the description gives a reasonable sketch of returned content. However, it leaves the jobId semantics and error behavior unaddressed, so an agent still has gaps before calling it correctly.

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 jobId parameter, and the description never mentions it, its format, or where to obtain it. The description does nothing to compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 read operation ('current status of a job') and enumerates the information returned (blockers, next steps). It implicitly distinguishes itself from list_jobs by being about a single job, but never says so explicitly or mentions the 'golive' framing from the title.

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 no guidance on when to call this versus list_jobs, create_job, or undo_job, and does not state any preconditions. The only usage signal is the implied 'check a job's status', which an agent could infer 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.