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

The description discloses behavior beyond the annotations: it explains the full lifecycle of statuses (pending, completed, failed, not_found) and the 24-hour TTL for job_id expiration. These are non-obvious behavioral traits not captured by readOnlyHint or idempotentHint. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 two sentences: the first states the core function, the second details the statuses and usage timing. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool has a single parameter, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description fully covers the essential context: the polling workflow, all possible statuses, TTL expiry, and when to call. The output schema handles return-value details, so no further explanation is needed.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for job_id, including the origin ('The job_id returned by competitive_deep_dive_async'). The description does not add new semantic meaning about the parameter beyond reinforcing the same origin and TTL, so 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's purpose: 'Poll the result of a competitive_deep_dive_async job.' It uses a specific verb ('poll') and resource ('result of a ... job'), and the status enumeration distinguishes it from the synchronous competitor_deep_dive and the submission tool async, making it unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Call this after the eta_seconds hint returned by competitive_deep_dive_async.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool (after submitting an async job) and implies the alternative (using the async submission tool first). It also distinguishes the polling pattern from other siblings.

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