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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the tool returns a next_tool_call to be followed iteratively, and a running response is explicitly not proof of success. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or return shape, but the added polling semantics are substantial.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and resource, then the procedural rule. The final two sentences are somewhat aphoristic ('a proposed plan is not execution proof'), but they do carry the meaningful warning that only a completed verdict establishes a pass, so they earn most of their space.

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 polling tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential loop behavior and the success/error termination condition. It is nearly complete, though it never describes what next_tool_call or the 'receipt' actually contain, leaving the agent to discover that at runtime.

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 100% schema description coverage ('Exact job_id returned by the original call'). The description reinforces that it must be the SAME job but adds no new syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Retrieve) plus the exact resource (the SAME running job) and enumerates the originating tools whose jobs it polls (find_bugs, fix_bug, prove_fix, verify_behavior, validate_integration). An agent can immediately tell this apart from the starter tools that create those jobs.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('Retrieve the SAME running ... job') and an explicit when-not ('Never restart the original tool to poll'), plus the operating loop ('Follow next_tool_call until status is done or error'). The anti-pattern is named directly, leaving nothing to inference.

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