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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive nature. The description adds valuable behavioral context: polling timing, result availability tied to job status, and error handling for failed jobs. It doesn't mention authentication explicitly (though workspaceToken is described in schema) or rate limits beyond polling interval.

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 three sentences that are front-loaded and every sentence carries essential information without waste. It's appropriately sized and structure is clear.

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 read-only polling tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behaviors: what it does, when to poll, result states, and alternative tools for specific outcomes. It could mention authentication requirements (workspaceToken) or error formats, but annotations cover safety and the schema describes the token. Overall, it's sufficiently complete 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 coverage is 50%: workspaceToken has a description, jobId does not. The description does not add parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the partial coverage and no added detail in the description.

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 clearly states the specific action: 'Read a queued analysis job.' It distinguishes itself from other read tools by specifying a job-based operation, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings (though it does direct to get_download_link and get_rendered_table).

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 provides clear usage context: wait at least two seconds between polls, only succeeded jobs have completed results, failed jobs contain errors. It explicitly names alternative tools for specific cases: get_download_link for artifact IDs and get_rendered_table for render_project_table jobs. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' beyond the tool routing.

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