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

Beyond the annotations the description discloses meaningful behavior: no duplicate provider submissions on re-calls, consumption of one 'read' credit when a result is first saved and none on later retrievals, and a polling cadence via next_check_after_seconds. This explains the readOnlyHint=false/non-free semantics that annotations alone leave opaque. It stops short of describing what happens while the job is still pending or on provider failure.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and where the required id comes from, with no filler. The final credit-consumption sentence is dense but earns its place; the 'collect a pending ... request' phrasing is slightly odd for a read 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what comes back, yet it never states whether the response contains the fetched items, a pending status, or both. It does cover cost, deduplication, and the next_check_after_seconds polling signal, which covers most of what an agent needs before calling.

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% for the single parameter, so the description must carry the burden, and it does explain the provenance of job_id (obtained from the pending result alongside next_check_after_seconds). It does not specify the id's format or whether stale/expired ids are rejected, but the origin guidance is the practically important part.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource: collecting a pending Reddit/Marketplace/Glassdoor request tied to a job_id, and it clarifies that this resumes an existing collection rather than starting one. It does not differentiate itself from plausible siblings such as more_results, search_marketplace, or read, and the name/title ('status' vs 'get results') adds mild ambiguity about whether it returns status or payload.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent learns job_id comes from a 'pending result' that also supplies next_check_after_seconds, which suggests calling this after starting a collection and re-calling per the polling interval. However, no sibling or alternative is named, and the tool that produces the pending result is never identified, so the agent must infer the workflow.

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