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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavioral information on top: the three possible status outcomes, what 'done' yields with versus without sign-in (verdict vs reduced report), the card rendering, and the ownership restriction. That is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the triggering action and followed by outcome and access notes. Slightly dense phrasing in 'with the verdict or, without sign-in, the reduced report; shown as a card' but nothing is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present, return-shape detail is technically redundant, yet the description usefully frames the status semantics for a polling tool. It omits guidance on whether to re-poll, expected delays, or job_id expiry, which are the remaining gaps for a job-result endpoint.

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% and the single job_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its origin. The description only restates that job_id comes from evaluate_text, adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema's length bounds. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('collect the result of an evaluation') and ties it to the exact sibling that produces the input ('started with evaluate_text, using its job_id'). An agent can distinguish this retrieval tool from evaluate_text without opening either schema.

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 trigger condition is explicit: use this after an evaluation was started with evaluate_text. It also clarifies sign-in is not required and that only the caller's own evaluations are collectible. There is no explicit 'when not to use' statement, but the polling-after-start framing leaves little ambiguity.

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