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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does unusually well: it discloses the return contents, states that the links are for the HUMAN to approve and pay, and instructs the agent to relay rather than tap them. The gap is that it never says what the token is for or what happens if the job is unpriced, but the role-division and polling behavior are genuinely useful beyond any structured field.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return contents, then usage guidance. The closing rationale ('nothing here changes faster than a person works') is conversational but earns its place by justifying the no-timer rule.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies what is needed to call it correctly in context: when to poll, what returns, and who acts on the links. Only the parameter meanings remain unaddressed, which is the one substantive hole.

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 0% and the description never explains either parameter. 'The job' weakly implies orderId identifies the order, but the required 'token' is entirely unexplained in both schema and description, so an agent gets no help on what to pass or where to get it.

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 title pins the verb+resource ('Check on a job and read back the quote') and the description states what comes back: status, quote, outstanding items, and approve/pay links. It is distinguishable from submit_job and escalate_to_human, though the opening line 'Where the job has got to' is an indirect way of stating the purpose and leans on the title to be fully legible.

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?

Gives explicit timing guidance ('Poll this when your human asks rather than on a timer') and a clear precondition ('Once a person has priced it this returns the quote'). That covers when and when-not, but names no alternative tool for cases where the job is not yet priced or the human wants a different action.

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