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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds what the call returns (progress plus result counts) but says nothing about polling cadence, job-state transitions, or behavior when the job is unknown/incomplete.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and no filler. It is arguably too terse for a 3-parameter tool, but as a sentence it 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 simple read tool with no output schema, noting that the response carries progress and result counts is genuinely useful, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The gap is the total absence of parameter documentation and job-context guidance, which leaves the agent guessing how to source the three required IDs.

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 all three required parameters, so the schema contributes no meaning, and the description offers no help beyond implying that jobId identifies a discovery job. projectId and siteId scoping and ID format/origin remain undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') plus the resource and the exact payload ('progress and result counts of a discovery job'), which cleanly separates it from start_prospect_discovery and list_prospects. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all — nothing tells the agent this is the polling companion to start_prospect_discovery, nor when get_prospecting_summary or list_prospects would be preferable. The agent must infer positioning from the name alone.

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