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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden; it discloses that the tool returns status, and it enumerates the expected fields on success (postUrl) and failure (error, errorCode). It implies a read-only polling behavior, though it does not explicitly state auth, rate limits, or a no-side-effects guarantee.

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?

The description is three sentences, each earning its place: it states the function, the polling workflow, and the key result flags. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains 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 polling tool, the description adequately covers the main return fields and terminal statuses. However, it does not mention intermediate statuses (e.g., queued, processing) or polling cadence/timeout, and with no output schema these details are absent. This is a notable gap but not fatal.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds context by tying the tool to create_post, implying jobId comes from that flow, but it never explicitly states that jobId is the identifier returned by create_post or describes its format. This is partial compensation, not full.

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 states the specific verb and resource: 'Returns the current status of a post job.' It further differentiates itself from siblings by referencing the create_post flow and focusing on queued/completed post status, which is clearly distinct from creation tools or account status.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Poll this after create_post until status is succeeded or failed.' It also explains how to use the result on success and failure. It does not explicitly list when-not alternatives, but the trigger condition is clear and sufficient for tool selection.

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