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

With no annotations, the description does the full work of disclosing behavior: it says the call is free, implies it is a non-mutating polling operation by calling it a status check, and warns about interaction with sibling start tools. It does not specify the empty/no-job case or authentication requirements, but it is far more transparent than a simple 'returns status' statement.

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?

The description is three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: function/output, usage and polling cadence, and restriction. It is front-loaded with the return information. It could be more compact, but there is no waste, and every sentence adds necessary context.

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 status polling tool with no output schema, the description covers the return fields, the polling cadence, the free cost, and a critical disallowed situation. Missing only the empty/no-job return and any authentication note, but these are not essential for an agent to be able to use the tool correctly in context.

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 input schema is fully described at 100% coverage, including projectId format, an example, and guidance to call seo.project.list if lacking one. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond identifying 'a project', so the baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries that burden.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Returns'), the resource ('the most recent background job for a project'), and the specific output contents (type, status, progress counters, last log line). It also establishes itself as a polling/status tool distinct from the sibling start tools by framing the return value as the status of a job that other tools initiate.

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?

It explicitly directs when to call: 'poll this every few seconds after any tool that starts a job.' It also provides a clear prohibition and consequence: 'Do NOT re-call the start tool while status is RUNNING; it will be refused.' This gives an agent complete conditional context for invoking both this tool and its sibling start tools.

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