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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only one trait (no additional payment). For a poll tool it omits critical behavior: whether a still-running job returns a pending status, idempotency, rate limits, and auth expectations. These gaps matter for correct invocation.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, purpose front-loaded before the parameter hint and the cost reassurance. Every sentence carries 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should describe the return shape (result vs. pending) to be complete. It covers input selection and cost but leaves the polling semantics and response form undefined.

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?

With only 33% schema coverage, the description compensates partially by stating 'poll_url or job_id' as alternatives, reinforcing the anyOf requirement. It gives no format guidance for poll_url/job_id, and the authorization parameter is documented only in the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb (fetch) and resource (result of a naming job) with a clear scope qualifier ('already paid for'). It is unambiguous what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tools hero/name.

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 new payment' and 'you already paid for' imply this is the follow-up to a job creation step, giving implied usage context. It does not name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, leaving the agent to infer the workflow position.

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