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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful context by listing the possible status categories, but it does not explain response structure, error behavior, or what happens if the submission is missing.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the status categories are listed directly. It is appropriately sized for a simple status-retrieval tool.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the returned status categories reasonably well. However, the missing id semantics and lack of usage context leave important gaps for correct invocation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single required id parameter, and the description does not clarify what the id identifies. It adds no meaning beyond the schema's integer type, leaving the agent to guess whether it is a task id, mission id, or submission id.

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 it returns the state of a MonAssocié submission and lists the kinds of states involved. It is specific to this resource, though it does not explicitly name the alternative sibling tools or phrase the operation as a retrieval verb.

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 implies checking a submission status but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison with alternatives like get_run, list_jobs, or get_site_project_job. An agent must infer the usage context solely from the tool name and resource mention.

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