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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds only the async follow-up context (final result after detect running) and does not cover polling behavior, result readiness, or return shape.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with the triggering condition first and no redundant text. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter follow-up tool.

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 one-parameter read-only job-status/result tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description gives enough to know when and why to call it. It could mention result readiness or polling expectations, but nothing critical is missing for invocation.

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%, with job_id documented as the value returned by aicare_detect. The description reinforces that same source but adds no parameter syntax or constraints beyond the schema.

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 that the tool retrieves the final result of a job when aicare_detect returns status=running and job_id. It names the sibling that produces the job_id and scopes the resource to detection job results, though it does not explicitly contrast with aicare_get_detection.

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?

Explicitly gives the triggering condition: aicare_detect must have returned status=running along with job_id. It implies not to use otherwise, but does not name alternatives or when-not scenarios beyond that trigger.

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