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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety bar is low. The description still adds real value: it discloses the cost ('Free'), the intended polling cadence, that run_id appears even for a cancelled simulation, and that result only appears once completed.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by the field inventory and the polling note; there is no filler. The parenthetical about cancelled simulations is slightly awkward but carries genuine information, so only minor trimming is possible.

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 one-parameter read-only poller with an output schema and full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs is missing: origin of the job, terminal states, field availability by state, and polling guidance are all present.

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 single job_id parameter is already documented as coming from save_run or simulate_strategy. The description repeats that origin without adding format, constraints, or failure behavior for the id, so 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 ('Status of a background job') and pins the scope to jobs produced by save_run or simulate_strategy, which cleanly separates it from sibling get_run and from cancel_job. It even enumerates the returned fields and the status enum values, so an agent knows exactly what it gets back.

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 phrase 'poll every few seconds' plus 'Free' gives clear operational context for how to use it after kicking off save_run or simulate_strategy. It does not explicitly contrast with get_run or cancel_job, so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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