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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot: the terminal-state enumeration (completed, error, expired), the blocking semantics of wait_seconds, and the meaning of all_done.

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 front-loaded sentences with no redundancy: purpose first, origin of job IDs second, the blocking/snapshot decision third. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 4-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers the async-work model and the wait behavior well. It could say slightly more about what the per-job result contains, but the core decision inputs are all present.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that wait_seconds blocks until all jobs reach a terminal state and by spelling out what those terminal states are. It also clarifies the multi-ID use case for tracking a migration in one call.

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+resource ('Check the status and progress of ... Cycle jobs by ID') and distinguishes itself from list/control siblings by framing jobs as the async output of mutating tools. An agent can place it precisely in the lifecycle without opening the schema.

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 says the job IDs come from tools that submit work (migrate_instances, cycle_control_container) and explains the wait-vs-snapshot choice. It does not name a competing sibling to avoid or state exclusions, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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