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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it returns current state while running, and once finished returns the verdict, receipt content address and signing key, and printable statement link. This lifecycle detail is valuable and does not contradict the annotations.

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 with no filler: the purpose is stated first, followed by the running-state behavior and the finished-state outputs. Every sentence earns its place, and the description is appropriately sized for a simple polling 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?

For a one-parameter polling tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description fully covers when to call it, what happens during execution, and what the final result contains. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100% and the single parameter task_id is already well-documented by the schema ('The task_id returned by eudr_prepare_dds'). The tool description only repeats the same provenance ('started by eudr_prepare_dds') without adding new parameter-level details, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('the state of a compile started by eudr_prepare_dds'), making it immediately distinct from siblings like eudr_prepare_dds (which starts the compile) and eudr_export_statement (which presumably handles the final statement). It also clarifies the two-phase result, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does.

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 clearly places the tool in a workflow: call it after eudr_prepare_dds, while the compile runs, and read the final artifacts once finished. It does not explicitly name alternatives to exclude (e.g., 'for exporting, use eudr_export_statement'), but the workflow context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select this tool correctly.

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