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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the operation is free and that the result may require verification, adding useful context. However, it omits error handling, idempotency, or what happens when the job isn't verified, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no structured behavioral hints.

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, front-loaded sentence with 'Free.' leading, then the core purpose. No wasted words; appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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 two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides basic purpose and usage context. However, it lacks details about jobId, expected output, or error conditions, leaving an agent with gaps for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the accessToken parameter as coming from the paid call, but does not explain the jobId parameter at all. Thus it only partially compensates for the missing schema documentation.

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 the tool returns status and result of a paid job, clearly identifying the resource. It distinguishes the operation from sibling tools, which are unrelated. The verb is implicit but understood from the name.

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?

It indicates when to use: with the accessToken returned by the paid call that initiated the job, and notes it is free. This provides context for invocation after a paid job, though it does not explicitly mention polling or alternatives (which are not needed given distinct siblings).

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