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

Annotations already declare this a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: output is structured data plus signed file URLs, and MCP-Apps clients render a result card. It omits what happens for an incomplete or failed job, which is the main residual gap.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the client-rendering note trailing. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so adequately by specifying structured output plus signed file URLs. It falls just short of complete because it never addresses the failure/premature-call case for a job that is not yet completed.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already defines job_id, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds only the implicit constraint that the ID must reference a completed job, no format or sourcing detail beyond that.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('structured output and signed file URLs') and scopes it to 'a completed ProteinIQ job,' so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like get_job or get_workflow_results, leaving the agent to infer which getter to call.

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 phrase 'for a completed ProteinIQ job' implies the prerequisite that the job must have finished, which is useful implied guidance. But it never states what to use instead when the job is still running (get_job?) or names any alternative result-retrieval tool such as get_workflow_results.

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