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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: access is restricted to Operator accounts, public MCP returns not_available_on_public_mcp, and a CUDA result is not a Lab engine verification.

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 but poorly structured: it opens with cryptic flags like 'PAPER PREVIEW (sealed:false, is_keep:false, paper:true)' and mixes English and French. The useful routing information is not front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description adds access restrictions and a caveat, but leaves the job_id source/format and the meaning of the 'PAPER PREVIEW' flags unexplained.

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?

There is one required parameter, job_id, with 0% schema description coverage. The description implies it identifies an ArenaScript CUDA job but gives no format, source, or constraints, so it does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 states that the tool returns the status of an ArenaScript CUDA job, which is a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from get_lab_desktop_handoff for verdicts, though the opening 'PAPER PREVIEW' flags add ambiguity.

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?

It explicitly says 'Not a verdict; for a verdict use get_lab_desktop_handoff', naming the alternative and the condition. It also notes that reads are reserved for Operator accounts and that the public MCP returns not_available_on_public_mcp, giving clear usage context.

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