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 safety profile is covered. The description adds the polling behavior and the ability to handle multiple statement IDs, which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't describe response format or potential errors, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, concise sentence that packs in the purpose, the use case, and the key parameter behavior. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, and every word earns its place. No fluff.

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's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects) and the strong annotations, the description is fairly complete. It covers the main use case (polling) and the key capability (multiple IDs). It could mention the 'account' parameter, but that's a minor gap. The description is adequate for an agent to understand when and how to use it.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that statement_ids is a list of IDs for statements to poll, which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, the 'account' parameter is not mentioned in the description, and with only 2 parameters, the description could have covered both. The description adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 retrieves status and results for one or more statements by ID, specifically for polling long-running queries. It distinguishes itself from siblings like databricks_run_sql and databricks_cancel_statement by mentioning the polling use case and the ability to accept a list of statement IDs.

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 explicitly mentions when to use this tool: for polling queries that returned PENDING/RUNNING from run_sql. This provides clear context for usage, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which would be a 5.

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