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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only added behavioral detail is 'Free' (cost context), which is genuinely useful but minimal; it says nothing about whether the job must be finished, what happens on an unknown/expired job_id, or error 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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the core action and the parameter's provenance are front-loaded. Nothing wasted.

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?

Wait — reassessing: with no output schema, the description does not state what a successful lookup returns (job status vs. scraped payload), which is a meaningful gap for a job-status tool. Score should be 3.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema only tells the agent job_id is a non-empty string. The description compensates partially by explaining provenance ('the job_id it returned' from an earlier scrape), which is real added meaning. It still lacks any format example or validity constraints 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 and resource: 'Look up an earlier scrape by the job_id it returned.' An agent can tell this is a retrieval tool for a prior job. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the similarly-scoped sibling pollJobUntilDone, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'an earlier scrape ... it returned' implies this is a follow-up call after initiating a scrape, which gives some usage context. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the obvious alternative pollJobUntilDone, leaving the agent to infer which job-lookup tool fits a given situation.

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