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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive. The description adds genuinely new context: the call is free (no credit consumption, relevant given blackwood_credits_balance exists) and the job is asynchronous, requiring polling until done is true. It omits failure/expiry behavior, but the added polling semantics are substantive.

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 tight sentences with no filler. Leading with 'Free.' is a slightly odd prioritization versus the polling instruction, but nothing is wasted and the core information is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the async lifecycle, the source of the id, and cost. The only gap is error/terminal-failure handling, which is minor for a single-parameter status endpoint.

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% for the single jobId parameter, so the description carries the burden and it partially does: it identifies the jobId as coming from a blackwood_llm_chat job. It still says nothing about format, length, or what happens with an unknown/expired id, leaving a gap for a low-coverage 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+resource pair: retrieving the status and result of a job created by blackwood_llm_chat. It explicitly names the sibling that creates the job, so an agent can tell it apart from blackwood_llm_chat and from unrelated *_status tools without opening a 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?

'Poll until done is true' gives the operating pattern and implicitly tells the agent this must be called after blackwood_llm_chat. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance (e.g. what to do on a failed job, or whether to poll with backoff), but the usage context is clear.

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