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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds valuable context beyond those: it costs no credits, requires an API key, returns run state/progress/leads found so far, and clarifies that a still-running job is a normal response rather than an error. No contradiction exists.

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 with a clear front-loaded purpose, followed by usage guidance, cost/polling behavior, and return details. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant exposition or repetition of annotation fields.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter schema and strong annotations, the description provides all essential runtime context: how to poll, cadence, credit cost, required authentication, return contents, and error semantics. The absence of an output schema is well compensated by the explicit list of returned fields (run state, progress, leads found so far).

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 already documents jobId as a 'Lead search job UUID' with 100% coverage. The description adds useful semantic context by indicating the jobId comes from a prior search_leads call, reinforcing the companion relationship and the polling pattern, though it does not add much beyond the 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Poll one lead-search job for its progress and results.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from the related search_leads tool and from other status tools like get_autopilot_status or get_channels_status by scoping it to lead-search jobs specifically.

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 instructions: call it repeatedly with the jobId from search_leads until the job finishes, leave a few seconds between polls, and treat a running job as normal. It also states that read-only polling costs no credits, providing clear practical guidance for when and how to use it.

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