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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral context: it is 'free', requires 'no payment', and specifies the polling pattern with exact statuses (complete, failed, retryable). This goes well beyond the annotations.

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?

Four short, purposeful sentences. The main purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds distinct value (purpose, cost, polling behavior, payment). No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description covers the essential usage: what it retrieves, how to poll, and the terminal statuses. It does not specify the exact response structure, but for a polling tool this is adequate.

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 the description does not explicitly describe the jobId parameter. However, the phrase 'previously submitted job' implicitly indicates the jobId identifies that job. It adds minimal meaning but does not fully compensate for the lack of schema description.

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 clearly states the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'status or completed QA report' for a 'previously submitted job'. It is distinct from sibling tools like check_page, compare_page, verify_page which focus on pages, not reports.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use: polling a previously submitted job. Includes explicit polling instructions with target statuses. Does not mention alternatives, but siblings are unrelated, so no exclusion is necessary.

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