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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context—no polling behavior, error handling, or status values. It essentially restates the name without enriching the agent's understanding of the operation's behavior.

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, direct sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could arguably be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 should explain what the tool returns, but it does not. It also fails to mention any dependency on a prior discovery call or the nature of statuses. For a status tool, this is a significant gap—an agent cannot anticipate the response format or state transitions.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with both parameters described (UUID of connector, UUID of discovery execution). The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameters, but the schema already provides sufficient detail, 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?

The description states a clear verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('discovery execution status'). It is distinct from siblings like 'connector_status' (general connector status) and 'connector_discover_results' (results), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate them. The purpose is clear and unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., that a discovery execution must be initiated first) or exclusions. The agent must infer from the name and parameters that this is for checking status after a discovery, but no explicit context is provided.

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