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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only profile, and the description goes further by spelling out the authority required (operator identity, proven wallet, or admin) and the exact failure modes (403 for wrong identity, 401 without credentials, 404 for unregistered kernel on non-admin). Some of this (WP-A, DECISIONS items) is internal jargon of limited operational value.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the auth/error detail is useful, but the reference to WP-A and DECISIONS items 136 and 138 is internal noise that dilutes an otherwise informative paragraph.

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 poll tool with readOnly annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key concerns an agent needs: authorization requirements, error semantics, and the filtering default. Return-value description is unnecessary given the absence of an output schema.

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 kernelId is already documented and baseline is 3. The description mentions a status filter that is not present in the input schema, which slightly muddies rather than clarifies the single parameter.

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 (polls) and resource (jobs assigned to their kernel), plus the status scoping behavior. It does not name any sibling such as get_kernel_jobs or list_jobs, so an agent must infer the distinction from context alone.

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 conveys context (status defaults to queued, route can filter any status) and a negative note that the pcc-node daemon does not call it. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this over the many sibling job-listing tools, leaving usage inference to the reader.

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