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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the job is async and polled, but does not say whether repeated polling is required, what terminal states look like, or how long results persist before apk_teardown_delete_job removes them.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action and resource first. No waste, though it is terse enough that it could have spent one more clause on polling behavior.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a polling endpoint the description omits the one thing an agent needs beyond the schema: whether the job is still running versus finished, i.e. how to interpret the response across repeated calls.

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% and the schema itself notes the id comes from apk_teardown_submit's response. The description's 'by id' adds only a small restatement, so the schema does the heavy lifting; with one fully documented parameter this is adequate.

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 ('Poll') and resource (apk-teardown job status/result) keyed by id. It is distinguishable from siblings like apk_teardown_submit or apk_teardown_delete_job, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Implies the polling-after-submit workflow through 'job's status/result', but never states when to call it (e.g. after apk_teardown_submit returns a job id) or when it is unnecessary. No alternatives or exclusions are given, leaving usage to inference.

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