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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context on top of that: a read-scope authorization requirement and the polling/backoff expectation, which is exactly the behavior an agent needs and cannot get from 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?

Three short sentences, fully front-loaded: purpose first, then scope requirement, then polling behavior. No filler and nothing that repeats the schema or annotations.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing what comes back, and 'status and summary' is thin — possible status values and whether partial results are included are left unstated. It also never points to fairvalid_get_results for the completed case, which is the main decision an agent faces after polling.

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 as 'The job_id returned by a previous submission,' including UUID format and pattern. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so 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 concrete verb and resource: 'Read the current job status and summary' for a named job. It is distinguishable from submit_job and cancel_job, though it stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with fairvalid_get_results, which is the closest sibling and the natural next step once polling ends.

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 real operating guidance: 'Poll with backoff' tells the agent how to call it repeatedly, and 'pending is not a final result' tells it when to stop trusting the response. It does not explicitly name fairvalid_get_results as the alternative once the job completes, so the routing is implied rather than stated.

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