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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real context beyond that: the four possible status values, the conditional rule that contacts are populated only when status=completed, and the read-scope requirement. That is substantive behavioral disclosure, though it says nothing about the cadence of status changes or what 'progress' looks like.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the conditional rule an agent most needs. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (status, progress, contacts), the value domain of status, and the condition under which contacts appear. That is close to complete; only guidance on job-ID discovery is missing.

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 100% — the single 'id' parameter is already documented as a UUID discovery job ID in the schema. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance for that ID, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'get the status, progress, and contacts of a discovery job.' That is concrete enough for an agent to know exactly what it retrieves. It stops short of distinguishing itself from sibling lookups such as get_autopilot_status or list_discovery_sources, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent infers it should call this to poll a discovery job by ID. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative tool for listing or finding job IDs.

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