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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the non-mutating, safe profile is clear. The description adds only optionality and the existence of an alternative, without further behavioral context like polling semantics or failure modes; this is acceptable given the strong annotation coverage.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core fact (dedicated status tool) and the main alternative are front-loaded, which is appropriately sized for a one-parameter, read-only status check.

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 and the required parameter is documented, so return values and input needs are covered. The main gap is that the description does not clarify how this tool relates to get_sales_mission_result or when to choose it over run_sales_mission, which matters given the large sibling set.

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 single parameter job_id is already fully described in the schema as 'smj_... job ID returned by start/run_sales_mission', providing 100% schema coverage. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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?

Identifies itself as a status tool for AlpineLead sales missions and the title/name specify exactly what is checked. It distinguishes itself from run_sales_mission by explicitly naming that sibling's status action. The verb is implicit rather than strongly stated, so it is not a 5.

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 points to run_sales_mission(action='status', job_id=...) as an alternative, which gives the agent a decision point. However, it never states when to prefer this dedicated tool versus the alternative, such as lighter weight or simpler polling, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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