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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it enumerates the possible status values (waiting, running, done, failed) and mentions queue depth ('how many reads are ahead'). It doesn't contradict annotations and adds value beyond them.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. The core purpose and the returned information are presented efficiently.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one param, read-only, no output schema), the description is largely complete: it states what statuses and queue info are returned. It could be slightly more explicit about the return format (e.g., whether it returns a status string and a count), but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's output.

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 parameter 'id' is well-documented in the schema ('The job id that mttr_rescan returned'). The description adds no additional semantics about the parameter, so the 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?

The description states the tool reports a rescan's status (waiting, running, done, failed) and queue position. The verb 'stands' is informal but clear enough; the title and parameter description reinforce the purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like mttr_rescan or mttr_progress_link, but the param description names mttr_rescan.

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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It only describes what output to expect, leaving the agent to infer that it should be called after mttr_rescan to check progress. No conditions or exclusions are stated.

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