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

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real value with HTTP status semantics (200=finished, 202=running, other=failed) plus the underlying endpoint. It does not state whether polling should be repeated or throttled, but the added context is substantive.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the input source, then the return semantics. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 so via the status-code mapping, which is what an agent needs to interpret results. It stops short of describing the failure detail or whether retries are expected, leaving a minor gap.

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 operation_id format example is already documented in the schema. The description restates that the id comes from the write tool's reply without adding format or syntax beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('the status of an asynchronous operation') and enumerates the operation classes it tracks (cache clear, PHP restart, manual backup). An agent can immediately distinguish it from the write siblings like kinsta_clear_site_cache or kinsta_restart_php that produce the operation_id it consumes.

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?

Tells the agent when to use it: 'by the operation_id the write tool returned,' which is clear post-write polling context. It does not name the specific write siblings or state any exclusions, but the trigger condition is unambiguous.

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