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

Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, the description discloses the return JSON shape, special epub-audiobook fields, polling cadence, failure behavior, and the fact that the tool is free. This gives the agent a clear behavioral model of polling without contradicting the annotation.

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 dense but every sentence carries operational value: usage context, return format, polling interval, completion routing, failure handling, cost, and exclusions. The most important purposestatement is front-loaded, and the structure flows naturally from when to use to what happens next.

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 an async polling tool with no output schema, the description fully compensates: it specifies statuses, response shape, special cases, polling timing, next steps, failure handling, cost, and synchronous-tool exclusions. Nothing critical for correct invocation or interpretation 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% and the schema already documents requestId and jobType in detail, including the mapping from jobType to the originating tool. The description reinforces that requestId comes from an async tool and that jobType must match, but it does not add substantial meaning 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 the status of an async job.' It also names the exact async tools that return requestId, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_job_result, check_payment_status, and await_result. The role of the tool is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance: after calling an async tool that returns a requestId. It also states when NOT to use it (synchronous tools like generate_image and generate_text), gives a recommended polling interval, and spells out next steps for COMPLETED and FAILED statuses, including routing to get_job_result and avoiding automatic retries.

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