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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: this is an async job poll whose result arrives as compact text plus a JSON link valid only 1 hour, and failures return reasons. It stops short of stating polling cadence or link-request limits, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and result contract, then walks through view and names options with no filler. The telegraphic fragments ('While running: progress.', 'If impossible: the reasons.') are dense but occasionally read as clipped rather than flowing.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it describes the running, done, and failure cases and the shape of the text result and link. Some detail (link format, whether re-polling is cheap) is left implicit, but the lifecycle is covered.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description meaningfully enriches the parameters: view='teachers' is explained as one table per teacher including preparation time, 'summary' as key figures plus class/teacher lists, and names is scoped to class or teacher codes with a size-based recommendation.

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 and resource (get status/result of a job) and ties it directly to the originating tools, 'create_schedule (or a slow validate_input)'. That origin reference cleanly separates it from the create/validate siblings, so an agent knows this is the polling/retrieval step rather than a new job.

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 explicit conditional guidance: while running you get progress, when done you get a timetable plus a link, and it recommends names='...' specifically for big schools. The view options are framed by when each is appropriate (classes vs teachers incl. preparation time vs summary figures).

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