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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds non-obvious context by naming the three possible status outcomes and the queue_id field of the last job. It also discloses the underlying endpoint (GET /ext-optimization-status). Auth requirements and rate limits are not mentioned, which keeps it from a 5.

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 no filler; the outcome enumeration comes first and the operational instruction (poll after optimize) follows. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 return-value disclosure and does so by listing status values and queue_id, which is the key information for a polling tool. It does not indicate what happens for an invalid or never-optimized route, nor any recommended polling interval, leaving a small gap for an async-status 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?

There is a single parameter, route_id, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents it. The description adds nothing about route_id semantics (e.g. where to obtain it), so the 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 ('check whether a route is optimized') and enumerates the exact status values returned plus queue_id, so the agent knows the response shape from the description alone. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling upper_optimize_route, which starts the job rather than reporting on it.

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?

'Poll this after upper_optimize_route' gives an explicit sequencing rule tied to the relevant sibling tool, which is exactly the guidance needed for an async job. It stops short of stating when-not to use it (e.g. before any optimization job exists) or a polling cadence, so it falls just below the top tier.

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