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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: the output is only the tail of the job's log, and it reports the exit code once the job ends. It does not disclose the tail truncation default or any limits on how long jobs are retained, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, all front-loaded with the essential linkage to site_run_command before the polling and log-tail rationale. Every sentence adds distinct information with no filler.

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?

For a status-polling tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the origin of the job id, the polling cadence, the log-tail behavior, and the safety profile. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 carries the burden, and it explains only the required 'job' parameter (the id returned by site_run_command) and implicitly the tail concept. The 'site', 'server', and 'tail_lines' parameters are undocumented anywhere, leaving a real gap that a full 4-5 would have closed.

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 (reads) and resource (a background command started by site_run_command), and enumerates the three things it returns: running state, printed output, and exit code. It is clearly distinguished from its sibling site_run_command, which starts commands rather than reporting on them.

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?

Explicitly ties use to site_run_command(background=true) and gives the polling condition ('Call it again after a while for long installs'), plus the reason to prefer it over raw log access (no conversation flooding). No ambiguity about when to invoke it.

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