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

Annotations already declare this as a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds substantive behavior: the four possible status values and the fact that an error message accompanies FAILURE. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but for a single read endpoint that is a minor 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 compact sentences: the core semantics and status set come first, the endpoint path last. No repetition of the tool name or title and nothing extraneous.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does list the status outcomes plus the error message on failure. It leaves open response structure details (e.g., field names, whether an error message is present on TIMEOUT), but is otherwise complete for a one-parameter read tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns extra by explaining where the id originates (a previous write that returned 202) and by mirroring the path templating, which tells an agent how to source the parameter.

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 ('get the status of an asynchronous bol process'), constrains the scope to processes that answered 202, and enumerates the possible outcome states. This makes it immediately distinguishable from all sibling GET tools, which fetch business objects rather than process state.

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 parenthetical '(a write that answered 202)' makes it clear this is the follow-up call after an asynchronous write, which is exactly the guidance an agent needs. It does not discuss polling cadence or what to do with each status, but no sibling offers an alternative path, so the context is sufficient.

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