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

Annotations cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, and the description adds genuinely new operational context: no credit cost regardless of call count, an API key requirement, the shape of the response (run state, progress, leads so far), and the important clarification that a still-running job is a normal answer rather than an error.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then the polling workflow, then the cost/return caveats. Every sentence carries distinct information; the slightly conversational tone about polling harder doesn't waste space because it encodes a real cost constraint.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe the return value, and it does — run state, progress, and leads found so far, plus the non-error status of an incomplete job. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool 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% with a single documented jobId parameter, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds only the provenance hint that the jobId is the one 'you were given' by search_leads, which is minor added value.

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 ('Poll one lead-search job for its progress and results') and immediately positions itself relative to the sibling search_leads as its companion. An agent can distinguish it from list_leads or search_leads without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use instructions: call repeatedly with the jobId returned by search_leads until the job reports finished, with a concrete cadence ('leave a few seconds between polls'). It also warns against over-polling, covering the when-not case.

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