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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's real contribution is that results become available only 'once read' (progressive enrichment) and that the call is 'free' (no quota cost, relevant given the check_quota sibling). That is useful behavior beyond the annotations, though it doesn't cover latency or failure modes.

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?

Three short clauses, with the core action and the polling rule front-loaded; the mid-sentence list of result fields is slightly dense but every sentence carries information.

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 usefully summarizes what comes back (status, split, calculation count, plan payment). Combined with the annotations and fully documented parameter, an agent has enough to call and interpret it, though the transition path after status resolves is left implicit.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the UUID and its origin in precheck_part. The description reinforces the precheck_part linkage but adds no format or constraint detail 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 a specific verb and resource ('Read a precheck from precheck_part') and enumerates the payload (status, calculation splits, number of calculations, plan payment), which lets an agent tell it apart from siblings like get_calculation or get_process_plan. The phrasing 'how its calculation splits' is a bit opaque, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

'Use it until status is no longer received' gives concrete polling guidance, and naming precheck_part implicitly routes creation to that sibling. It does not explicitly say what to do after the status changes (e.g., switch to get_calculation), so a small gap remains.

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