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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, but the description adds genuinely new information: reading 'never restarts it', which reassures the agent that polling is side-effect free, and it enumerates the terminal/transient states (running, done, lost). It does not cover behavior for unknown or expired ids.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the key safety caveat. No 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully lists the return states, which is the main thing an agent needs to branch on. Minor gaps remain (what 'lost' means in practice, whether a result payload accompanies 'done'), but the core is covered.

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 100%; the parameter already documents the exact 'op_…' format and its origin (data.operation.id or next.args.id) from a 202 reply. The description adds nothing beyond that, 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 states a specific resource ('state of an earlier action') and enumerates the possible outcomes ('running, done or lost'), so an agent knows this is a status-lookup for an async operation. It is distinguishable from the many *_status siblings (quest_status, project_status, interview_status) by the word 'action', though it does not explicitly say so.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'state of an earlier action' plus the schema note about a '202 reply' suggests polling after an async submission. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative among the status siblings.

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