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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing the four status values and that calls are free (no credit consumption), which matters given the buy_credits/get_credit_balance siblings. It does not say whether job records expire or how often to poll.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and ending with the next-step instruction. The 'Free.' fragment is terse but carries genuine cost information in a toolset that sells credits, so it 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 one-parameter status tool with a fully-specified safety annotation set and no output schema, the description covers what it does, the status domain, cost, and the follow-up action. Missing only polling cadence and terminal-state handling (expired/failed jobs), which are minor against the overall coverage.

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 single job_id parameter has no schema description (0% coverage), so the description carries some burden. It implicitly tells the agent where job_id comes from — a fetch job started by query_parcels — but gives no format, length, or error behavior for an invalid ID.

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 ('Check an on-demand fetch job') and anchors it to the sibling that creates it ('started by query_parcels'), which lets an agent place it in the workflow. It also enumerates the possible states (queued/running/done/failed), narrowing the concept further. It stops short of explicitly ruling out jobs created by other query siblings such as query_permits.

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?

'When it is done, repeat the same query_parcels search' gives concrete follow-up behavior, so an agent knows this is a polling tool rather than a data-retrieval tool. There is no explicit 'do not call before starting a job' or guidance for what to do on 'failed', but the usage context is clear.

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