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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the structured fields: the polling cadence constraint, which implies the job is async and long-running.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and immediately followed by the practical polling hint. No redundant restatement of the title or annotations.

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 polling tool with no output schema, it should ideally hint at terminal states (e.g., success/failure) or how to tell the import is finished; 'Progress and result' is suggestive but underspecified. Everything else an agent needs — the initiating tool, the cadence, the required jobId — is present.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters (jobId, workspaceId) are documented in the schema itself. The description only indirectly references jobId via the phrase 'started with import_style_from_link' and adds no format or defaulting detail, 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?

States a specific resource ('an import started with import_style_from_link') and what it returns ('Progress and result'), naming the sibling tool that creates the job. An agent can immediately distinguish this status-check tool from import_style_from_link and from other get_* readers.

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?

Explicitly ties usage to a prior call ('started with import_style_from_link') and gives operational guidance ('Wait about 30 seconds between checks'). It does not state an explicit stop condition or when not to call, so it falls just short of a 5.

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