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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses latency and polling cadence, but omits whether the operation is read-only, what the response contains, or error handling. Minimal behavioral disclosure beyond the polling hint.

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 sentences with no wasted words. Purpose is front-loaded, followed by a practical polling note. It is appropriately brief, though brevity comes at the cost of parameter and behavioral detail.

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?

The tool is simple, but with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the agent lacks information about the response format or how to interpret status values. The polling advice is helpful, but the definition is incomplete 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 description coverage is 0% and the description offers no explanation of job_id or job_token. An agent cannot infer their purpose or format beyond the parameter names, and the description does nothing to compensate.

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 'Progress/state of a job' with the verb 'get' and a specific resource, distinguishing it from result retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_verification_result, relying on the name to imply status vs. result.

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 actionable polling guidance ('Poll every 15-30 seconds; live calls take minutes'), which implies when to call it repeatedly. But it doesn't state when to use this tool versus get_verification_result or any other alternative, leaving the selection logic to the agent's inference.

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