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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: jobs persist across service restarts for the retention window (one day on the public service), and a job interrupted by a restart returns with a status of interrupted plus the reason. It does not cover what happens for an unknown or expired id, which is the main remaining gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the call returns. The second sentence is dense but each clause (retention, restart persistence, interrupted state) adds distinct information, so 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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be described, and the annotations cover read-only semantics. For a one-parameter getter the description is nearly complete; the missing piece is how the id is sourced and what an expired/unknown job yields.

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 required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden for explaining it. It never says what form the job id takes or where the caller obtains it, leaving the only parameter undocumented in both schema and description.

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 identifies the resource (a job) and precisely what is returned: its status and, once finished, its result. That is a specific retrieval purpose distinguishable from siblings like dry_run_quantum_job or verify_quantum_receipt, though it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'its result when it is done' suggests polling a job after submission, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when not to call it, and no routing to alternatives such as list_targets or verify_quantum_receipt.

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