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

Beyond the readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive annotations, the description discloses state-dependent behavior: running returns completed stages and polling guidance, complete returns brief/memo/link, needs_input requires following how_to_continue, and declined has a specific meaning. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for a polling tool.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then efficiently covers each relevant state and return behavior. Every sentence carries operational meaning, including the special needs_input and declined cases.

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 simple polling tool with an output schema and safety annotations already present, the description is largely complete: it covers lifecycle states, polling guidance, and completed-run returns. The remaining gap is that it does not explicitly tie job_id back to run_brief's returned identifier.

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 job_id parameter. The description only indirectly implies that job_id identifies a brief started with run_brief; it does not explicitly name job_id or explain where to obtain it, though the single-parameter schema and self-evident name limit the ambiguity.

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 states a specific resource and scope: the status of a brief started with run_brief. It also distinguishes this polling/status tool from the initiating sibling run_brief by saying the brief was started with that tool, and it names the lifecycle states the agent will encounter.

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 clear usage context: call this for a job created by run_brief, poll again while running, and retrieve results when complete. It does not explicitly name when not to use it versus siblings like get_brief or list_briefs, but the lifecycle context is strong enough for selection.

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