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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals a critical behavioral trait: every well-formed jobId resolves as completed, so a result is not proof the key was created. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs to interpret results correctly and goes well beyond what readOnlyHint or idempotentHint provide.

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 sentences carry the full meaning: the first states what is read and how the job is created, the second provides the crucial interpretive caveat. No filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is complete. It even adds the non-obvious sandbox semantics that could otherwise mislead an agent into treating a synthetic result as real evidence.

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% and the single jobId parameter is well-defined in the schema with pattern and origin. The description adds only the 'well-formed' framing and does not provide new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') with a specific resource ('status and synthetic result of a sandbox job') and ties it to create_sandbox_job, which clearly distinguishes it from the spotlight siblings. The caveat about completed results adds precision to what the tool actually does.

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 makes the usage context clear: it is for reading the result of a sandbox job that was created with create_sandbox_job. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling list shows the spotlight tools are unrelated, so the intended context is reasonably clear.

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