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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety bar is covered. The description adds rich context beyond them: that suspected_stall stops nothing, that secret values are redacted in the output tail, that per-action availability is reported via capabilities, and how progress is signalled. This is strong disclosure; it only lacks rate-limit/cost hints.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then cleanly grouped into connectivity/telemetry/progress plus a secondary field list. It is long and partly overlaps the existing output schema, but nearly every clause carries semantic meaning (state interpretations) rather than filler.

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, yet the description still adds interpretative value on states and capabilities. Combined with the auth note in the schema, an agent has almost everything needed; the only gap is executionId format/source.

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 50%: authKey is fully documented in the schema, but executionId has no schema description and the text only says 'by executionId' without format or provenance. With half the parameters undocumented elsewhere, the description does not fully compensate.

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 with scope: 'One read of a job while it runs, by executionId.' The name, title, and description all agree, and the timing ('while it runs') plus the enumerated return facets make it distinguishable from siblings like getStatus, getArtifact, and listJobs.

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?

It gives timing context ('while it runs') but never names an alternative or an exclusion. An agent is left to infer that this is the live-inspection tool versus getStatus or listJobs rather than being routed explicitly to it.

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