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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the call blocks for up to a minute — a critical trait — but omits what happens on timeout (error vs. partial result), whether polling again is expected, and any permission requirements. Solid on the main behavior, incomplete on the edges.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the identity of the tool and the blocking-wait caveat both front-loaded. Nothing is redundant.

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 one-parameter polling tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns, where the id comes from, and the wait window. The remaining gap is post-timeout behavior and return shape, which an agent would want to know before retrying.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains that job_id comes from optimize_website. The description's 'Pass its job_id' restates the schema without adding format, lifetime, or reuse semantics; 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 resource — the pending result of an optimize_website call — and explains the trigger condition (the call was still working when it returned). This clearly separates it from list_website_scans and get_website_scan, though it never names those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 a clear condition for use: it applies to an optimize_website call that returned while still working, and the agent is told to pass that job_id. It does not state when NOT to use it (e.g. for a completed scan, use get_website_scan) or what to do after the wait expires.

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