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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds the 'owned' constraint, which is useful context beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose what the status response looks like, whether it polls, or what happens for non-existent jobs. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste. The verb, resource, and scope are all front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read-status tool with annotations covering safety and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. However, it does not clarify what 'status' includes (e.g., state, progress, timestamps) or how it differs from job_result, which could matter for an agent choosing between them. The lack of an output schema raises the burden slightly, but the tool is simple enough that a 3 is fair.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds the 'owned' qualifier, which implies the job_id must belong to the caller, but it does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('current status for one owned Astrologos job'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like astrologos.job_result (which likely fetches results) and astrologos.abort_job (which mutates). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the scope is clear enough to differentiate.

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 implies usage: use this when you need the current status of a single job. It does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like job_result for results or abort_job for cancellation, nor does it mention prerequisites like ownership or job completion. The context is clear but lacks explicit routing guidance.

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