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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: this is an asynchronous job whose concept tree is only present once status is COMPLETED, implying polling. It does not describe the non-completed payload or failure behavior.

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 short sentences, no filler. The lookup strategy is front-loaded and the completion caveat follows as a secondary but relevant note.

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 read-only, zero-required-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers input routing and the key return state (COMPLETED includes the concept tree). It leaves open what is returned while pending and the behavior when no map is found, which are minor but real gaps.

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%, so baseline would be 3. The description earns above baseline by explaining the provenance of jobId (from create_mind_map) and the semantic difference of the id alternatives — documentId/lectureSessionId yield the most recent map rather than a specific one.

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 states a specific resource (mind map) and how it is identified: a jobId from create_mind_map, or a documentId/lectureSessionId for the latest one. It also distinguishes the retrieval mode from the create side by naming create_mind_map. It stops short of naming any other sibling, so it is clear but not fully differentiated across the toolset.

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 routes the caller: use jobId when you have one from create_mind_map, otherwise use documentId or lectureSessionId to get the latest map. That is actionable selection logic. It does not state exclusions or what to do when no mind map exists yet, which keeps it below a 5.

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