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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context the annotations cannot convey: the caller is the widget's own result card, not the agent, and repeated polling is an anti-pattern. It stops short of describing return payload or refresh cadence, so not a full 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the identity of the tool and immediately followed by the routing instruction and the anti-pattern. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description gives the agent everything it needs for the actual decision here: this tool is not for the agent, and popcraft_job_display is the correct substitute. No behavioral or routing information 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 100% with a single documented job_id parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no format, source, or naming detail beyond it; 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 specific verb+resource ('job status poll') and scopes it precisely as 'widget-internal', which immediately separates it from the agent-facing siblings. It also names popcraft_job_display as the tool to use instead, so the agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit when-not guidance: 'Do not call it yourself', plus the named alternative (popcraft_job_display) and a concrete prohibition ('never poll in a loop'). Nothing about usage is left to inference.

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