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

In the absence of annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context, stating that the tool is free and returns status, queue position, and cost. It implies a read-only poll operation, though it does not explicitly confirm no side effects.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence that front-loads the core action and outputs without unnecessary words or repetition. Every word serves a purpose.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential return fields (status, queue position, cost). It lacks details on pagination or error states but is adequate for polling a single job.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description only references the parameter implicitly ('a proving job'). It does not explain the format of 'job_id' or how to obtain it, leaving the agent to infer its meaning.

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 tool's purpose: polling a proving job for status, queue position, and cost. It uses specific verbs ('Poll') and resources ('proving job') and lists returned statuses, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'job_result' or 'prove_submit'.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'job_result' or other status tools. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or situations where it should not be used.

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