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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns 'queued jobs ready for execution' and notes the daemon exclusion, but says nothing about polling cadence, side effects on returned jobs, or pagination—modest added context over annotations.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The purpose leads, the return value follows, and the daemon caveat is a deliberate, earned exception 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 single-parameter, read-only poll tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return semantics, and a key caller exclusion. It lacks return shape/pagination detail, but the read-only annotation and the low complexity keep this adequate near the top of the scale.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Kernel ID to poll jobs for'), so the schema already documents it. The description adds no format, sourcing, or validation detail beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline of 3.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('polls for pending jobs assigned to their kernel') with explicit scope and a named non-caller ('pcc-node 0.1.1 daemon does not call it'), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_kernel_jobs and list_jobs.

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?

Implies the operator/kernel-execution context and explicitly excludes the pcc-node 0.1.1 daemon ('it takes no jobs'), which is useful negative guidance. It does not name an alternative poll tool or state preconditions, so it falls 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.