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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the returned state values, the auth modes and the requirement to match the auth used to enqueue, and the error responses (401/403/404). This goes well beyond the minimal annotation coverage.

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 with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, then packs auth and error info, and finally references the related tool. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-shot status fetch, the description covers what it returns (state), the auth constraints, the error cases, and how it relates to the wait tool. With no output schema, this is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both jobId and appId, including their formats and conditions. The description adds no new parameter details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool fetches the status and per-room results of a broadcast job by jobId, explicitly calling out that it is one-shot and non-polling. It distinguishes itself from the wait variant by naming it as an alternative, so an agent can immediately tell them apart.

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 explicitly says 'one-shot, no polling' and names the blocking wait tool as the related alternative, giving clear guidance on when to use this tool versus waiting. It also specifies auth mode requirements (app-token vs B2B with appId) and the error codes, leaving no ambiguity about prerequisites.

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