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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: the call is free, and waitSeconds turns it into a blocking long-poll of up to 50 seconds. It does not say what status values can be returned, which matters most for a status tool with no output schema.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the return payload and followed by the one behavior that changes calling patterns (blocking wait) and the cost note. 'Free.' is a fragment but earns its place; nothing is padded.

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?

Adequate for a simple two-parameter read, and the absence of an output schema is partly offset by naming the returned fields. The main gap is the set of possible status values, which an agent needs in order to decide whether to keep waiting or stop polling.

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%: waitSeconds only has 'Default 0' in the schema, and the description explains that it blocks until completion and is capped at 50, which is meaning beyond the schema. searchId is left undefined but is self-evident from the tool purpose.

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 resource and return payload: status and lead count of a search. That distinguishes it from list_searches (enumerating searches) and search_leads (running a search), though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Implies the polling use case via 'waitSeconds (up to 50) waits until it finishes', which is a genuine when-to-use signal, and 'Free' signals cost considerations. It stops short of stating when not to use it or pointing at a sibling for enumerating searches.

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