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 known. The description adds that this is a polling operation returning cumulative usage, which is useful, but does not disclose rate limits, idempotency expectations, or how settlement is represented.

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 tight sentences with no waste. The purpose is front-loaded and the usage instruction follows immediately.

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 single-parameter polling tool with an output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything needed to select and invoke it correctly. Return values need not be explained because an output schema exists.

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 documents job_id as an owner-scoped research job ID. The description adds provenance by saying to pass the job ID from submission, which helps the agent know where to obtain the required value.

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 ('research job'), and clarifies the returned payload is state plus cumulative usage. It is clearly distinct from research_start (submission) but does not name a sibling tool such as research_events or research_results to explicitly differentiate.

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 to pass the job ID from submission to check progress and settlement, giving clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not state when not to use it or name alternatives like research_results for fetching final outputs.

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