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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the response shape (status, errors, measured duration, stage timing) and, importantly, what is deliberately omitted (histories and prompts), which tells the agent the payload is trimmed.

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 the batch capacity and the return contents front-loaded, followed by the exclusion note. Every clause contributes information; nothing is redundant.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description responsibly names the returned fields, and the payload exclusions are useful for planning. Remaining gaps are minor: behavioral specifics for unknown or not-yet-started IDs are unspecified, but a two-parameter read-only poller with annotations does not need much more.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and largely does not. 'Up to 100 media jobs' mirrors the maxItems constraint already in the schema, but neither workspaceId nor mediaIds is explained — notably, it is unclear whether mediaIds are media IDs or job IDs, despite the description saying 'media jobs'.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Check ... media jobs'), gives the batch ceiling of 100, and enumerates what comes back. It implicitly separates itself from get_media/list_media by emphasizing compact status-only payloads, but it never names the sibling it contrasts with.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the polling/batch-status tool rather than a single-asset fetch. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over get_media, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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