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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose a meaningful trait: wait:true blocks until a terminal state, implying a potentially long-lived request. It omits timeout behavior, poll intervals, what terminal states exist, and what errors occur for unknown/expired job IDs.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the optional wait behavior. Slightly telegraphic phrasing ('Supports wait:true') but efficient.

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 polling tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should say what the response looks like (status values, terminal states, timing hints). It leaves that entire burden to inference, so it is only minimally adequate.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema (including 'numeric' and 'Block until terminal state'). The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 an export / async job by jobId'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'check_task_status', which appears to serve an overlapping purpose, leaving ambiguity about which one applies to a given job.

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 'Supports wait:true to block until terminal' clause hints at how to use the wait flag, but there is no explicit guidance on when to poll versus block, how often to poll, or when 'check_task_status' should be used instead. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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