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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts beyond the annotations: a hard cap of 50 result rows per call with offset-based paging, and a bounded 20-second blocking wait during trial/processing.

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 dense sentences with the return payload front-loaded and the operational constraints (row cap, offset, wait) appended. Every clause carries information, though the enumeration of return fields makes the first sentence long.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does: it lists the returned fields, the pagination cap, the download link, and the blocking-wait semantics. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this read-only tool correctly is missing.

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 all three parameters are documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by disclosing the 50-row-per-call cap that motivates offset, and by tying wait_seconds to the trial/processing lifecycle.

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 names a specific verb (returns the status of) and resource (an address list), then enumerates exactly what status fields come back: trial rows, address count, price, payment link, progress, result rows, and Excel download link. The reference to 'list_token from start_address_list' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling that creates lists.

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?

The note that it 'can wait up to 20 seconds for the trial or the processing to finish' implies a polling pattern after start_address_list, but the description never states when to call this versus the sibling tools or what to do if the list is still not ready. Usage is implied rather than specified.

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