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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: an authorization constraint (Operator accounts only), the exact sentinel response on the public MCP, and a caveat that a CUDA result is not Lab-engine verification. This is meaningful disclosure the structured fields do not provide.

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 compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the caveat last. The parenthetical access note is dense but earns its place; nothing is 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still flags the one non-obvious response value. Access restrictions and the CUDA-vs-Lab caveat are covered; only the job_id acquisition path is left implicit.

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% and the single job_id parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description implies the parameter identifies an ArenaScript CUDA job but adds no format, length, or provenance details (e.g., where a job_id comes from), so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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: it returns the status of an ArenaScript CUDA job, matching the tool name exactly. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_arenascript_monsters or backtest_arenascript, but the resource scope is unambiguous.

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 discloses who may use it (Operator accounts) and what happens on the public MCP (not_available_on_public_mcp), which is access guidance rather than when-to-use guidance. It never names an alternative tool or specifies the conditions under which an agent should call this instead of another status/backtest tool.

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