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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavioral facts: the job lifecycle states (queued/running/done/failed) and that the call is cost-free. It does not cover polling cadence, job expiry, or error/not-found behavior, so it is useful but not comprehensive.

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?

Three short fragments, front-loaded with the verb and the key next-step. The 'Free.' fragment earns its place as cost information. Slightly telegraphic but no wasted sentences.

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 polling tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the essential loop (check status, then repeat the query) and the status values. It omits what a completed job returns and how failures surface, which is acceptable given the simplicity but not exhaustive.

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% and the single job_id parameter is undocumented in the schema; the description implies its origin ('started by query_parcels') but gives no format or where it is returned. It partially compensates but leaves the agent to infer the id source.

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 ('Check') and resource ('an on-demand fetch job'), and anchors it to the sibling that creates it ('started by query_parcels'). An agent can distinguish this from query_parcels and the other credit/auth siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to call it (to check a job started by query_parcels) and what to do after it completes ('repeat the same query_parcels search'), which closes the polling loop. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or failure-path guidance, so it falls just short of a 5.

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