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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it discloses the non-blocking intent, the async/sync relationship to generate_wiki, and the shape of the return values including status states and conditional fields. It does not mention polling cadence, job expiry/TTL, or whether repeated calls on a completed job are idempotent, which are the remaining behavioral gaps.

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-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then the usage constraint, then the return shape. No redundant restatement of the name and every clause (including the CI-pipeline motivation) adds information.

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?

A single-parameter read tool with no output schema; the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (job_id, status values, wiki_doc, error) and their conditions, which is exactly what an agent needs to interpret the response without an output schema.

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 coverage is 100% and the single job_id parameter is already documented in the schema as coming from a prior generate_wiki call with async=true. The description largely restates that relationship rather than adding syntax or format detail, so the schema does the heavy lifting and 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 ('Returns') and resource ('current status of an async wiki generation job'), and explicitly situates it relative to the sibling generate_wiki with async=true. An agent can distinguish it from generate_wiki without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('Call after generate_wiki with async=true') and an explicit when-not-to-use ('do not poll for synchronous results — omit async=true on generate_wiki instead'), naming the alternative and the condition that selects it.

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