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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: this is a state-dependent async result whose payload only materializes 'when ready', plus a conditional payload shape for commit jobs. It omits failure/pending states, which leaves a gap.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the payload description; no filler. The final clause listing commit return fields is dense but each term is informative.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not strictly required and the description redundantly supplies it. What is missing for an async polling tool is lifecycle coverage — pending vs. failed vs. ready states and what the caller should do before 'ready' — which an agent needs to use it correctly.

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?

Only one parameter (job_id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden. It indirectly tells the agent where the id comes from by naming the three producing tools, but never describes the id itself or its format. Partial compensation over an undocumented field.

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 resource (job status) and explicitly scopes it to three named producer tools — fill_form_from_context, prepare_form, commit_proposal — which distinguishes it from the many other get_* siblings. An agent can identify the polling role without opening the schema.

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?

Naming the three job-producing tools makes the when-to-use implicit and unambiguous: call this after one of them to poll a job. It stops short of stating polling cadence, whether repeated calls are expected, or what to do on failure, so it is clear context without full operational guidance.

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