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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: the queued/running/done/failed state machine, that done carries a result and failed carries an error, and an explicit error-handling policy (relay the message verbatim, do not paraphrase as 'system busy', do not retry). That is real operational context, not restated structured data.

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?

Dense, front-loaded, and waste-free: the resource and its states come first, then cadence, then the error-handling rule. Every clause carries a distinct instruction an agent must follow.

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 correctly takes on the burden of describing return shape by naming the four states and what done/failed carry. It stops short of describing the payload of result or how a job_id is first obtained, but for a single-parameter polling tool it is close to complete.

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 0% and job_id has no description, so the only parameter semantics come from the description's '按 job_id 查', which essentially restates the parameter name. With just one self-explanatory required parameter this is minimally adequate, but nothing explains where the job_id comes from or its expected format.

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 (查长任务 by job_id) and enumerates the four terminal/intermediate states it can return, which no sibling tool covers. An agent can distinguish this polling tool from list_sessions, get_stats, or query_events without opening any 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?

Gives concrete operating guidance: poll every 3 seconds, and explicitly do not retry with the same parameters when an error is returned. It lacks a named alternative or a when-not-to-call-this condition, but the polling cadence and no-retry rule are the practical guidance an agent actually needs here.

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