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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it is read-only, free, changes nothing, and safe to call repeatedly. It also describes the return object (state plus progress object) and lists all possible states. No contradictions with annotations (none exist).

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?

Although the description is long, every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage, alternatives, states, polling advice, and sibling differentiation. The critical 'Read-only' qualifier is front-loaded, and the structure flows logically from purpose to usage to alternatives.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple states, polling behavior, sibling relationships) and lack of output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the tool returns, when to use it, how to poll, and which sibling to use instead. Nothing essential 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% with detailed descriptions for both job_id and job_token. The tool description adds little beyond what the schema already provides, mainly reinforcing the source of the parameters (purchase_quote). Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic load.

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 a specific verb ('progress check'), the resource ('a job bought with purchase_quote'), and distinguishes it from siblings by explicitly naming get_verification_result as the tool to read the answer. It also enumerates the exact states returned, leaving no ambiguity about its role.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'Use this to decide WHEN to read the answer; use get_verification_result to read the answer itself' and directly suggests polling get_verification_result instead if only waiting for completion. It also recommends a polling interval (15-30 seconds).

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