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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only and idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral context: the tool only exposes the study tied to the receipt, cannot list or open other studies, and returns structured results only when the study reaches readiness, disclosing the status set (queued/running/complete/partial/failed). No contradiction with annotations.

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 two front-loaded sentences with no redundant words. The first sentence states the core action; the second adds the result and the access limitation, both essential.

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?

The definition is complete for a single-parameter polling tool: it explains the statuses, the result condition, the access restriction, and an output schema exists to define return values. It could tie back to create_analysis_study as the source of the receipt, but this is strongly implied by the sibling context.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that the receipt is secret and is the sole access key to a specific temporary study. It does not specify how the receipt is obtained or its format details, but the schema pattern (^bas_[A-Za-z0-9_-]{43}$) covers format; the description supplies the semantic role.

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 verb and resource: it reads the queued/running/complete/partial/failed status of a temporary study from its secret receipt, and returns a structured result when ready. It also explicitly excludes listing or opening another study, which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_analysis_report or create_analysis_study.

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?

The description establishes clear context: this is a polling/status-check tool for a temporary study accessed via a secret receipt, and it returns the result only when ready. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, leaving the selection vs siblings (e.g., get_analysis_report) implicit.

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