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

With no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly signals a read-only operation ('Read'), discloses polling semantics ('Poll until complete or failed'), and notes ID persistence across restarts. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond what structured fields 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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action ('Read your saved app build status by ID') and then adds the essential polling and persistence details. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what it reads, how to poll it, and that IDs persist. It does not specify how to obtain the ID or describe error behavior, but these are minor omissions given the low complexity.

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?

The schema has one required id parameter with an empty description, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'by ID' and the note that the same ID survives restarts add some meaning, but the description does not clarify where the ID originates or what format it takes. It provides minimal but sufficient guidance for a single simple 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?

The description states a clear verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('your saved app build status by ID'), making the tool's function immediately obvious. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like apps_build, which would create or trigger a build rather than report its status.

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 provides practical usage context: the tool is meant for checking build status, can be polled until complete or failed, and the same ID remains valid across restarts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but for a simple status reader the context is clear enough.

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