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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety burden is covered. The description adds real value on top: it lists the returned fields (state, reservation, availability, owned result IDs) and states the download restriction, which is behavioral context the annotations do not carry.

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 dense sentences with no filler, front-loading what is read and the no-payment guarantee. It is packed tight but still readable; nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description does the work of enumerating the returned state fields and the download constraint. For a single-parameter read tool with full annotations, this is nearly complete; only pagination or error/no-job-found behavior is unaddressed.

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?

With schema coverage at 100% and a single parameter, the schema already documents the idempotency key including its format and ownership scoping. The description only restates that the input is the original key, adding no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: 'Read your owned processing job and result manifest', and clarifies the keying by idempotency key. It implies a distinction from the result-download sibling ('only available results may be downloaded') without naming it, so it stops short of the explicit sibling differentiation a 5 requires.

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 establishes the calling context ('no new payment', 'input is your original idempotency key'), which tells an agent this is a safe polling/status check rather than job creation. However, it never explicitly says when to use this versus skavio_agent_job_result or what to do when no result is available yet.

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