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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so this is known to be a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral value by enumerating the exact statuses the tool may return, which helps an agent interpret results and know what to expect. It does not introduce any contradiction with the 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?

The description is short and contains the essential status list, but the trailing phrase 'Job Cards analyzing phase' is unclear and adds little value. The opening 'Jobs —' prefix is also somewhat redundant. The structure is acceptable but not maximally concise because the extra phrase does not earn 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?

Given there is an output schema (though not shown), the description need not explain return values, and it does enumerate statuses. However, it references a tool that does not exist in the sibling list ('upload_profile_resume' vs 'upload_resume'), leaving a gap in the agent's understanding of the exact sequence. Also, 'Job Cards analyzing phase' is too vague to be actionable. Overall, the description is mostly complete but has a confusing reference.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter details. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to compensate. It adds no parameter semantics because there are none, which is appropriate.

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 clearly states that this tool polls the profile resume processing status and lists the possible statuses (ready, processing, idle, missing). However, it references 'upload_profile_resume' which is not among the sibling tools (the actual sibling is 'upload_resume'), causing potential confusion about the exact workflow. The phrase 'Job Cards analyzing phase' is vague but does not obscure the core purpose.

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?

The description provides a specific trigger ('after upload_profile_resume'), which implies when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives. Since no other tool polls resume status, the guidance is fairly clear, but the wrong tool name in the trigger undermines clarity and leaves an agent unsure whether it should follow up with 'upload_resume' or a non-existent tool.

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