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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining free metering even for drained keys, the ownership restriction, and the critical semantics that an absent field means 'not measured' rather than false or negative. These are non-obvious behavioral traits that materially affect how an agent should interpret results.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by cost, missing-field semantics, and visibility constraints. Every sentence earns its place, and the caveats are essential rather than filler.

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 no output schema, the description does the work of explaining return semantics: processed counts, resolved records, billing, and absent-field meaning. It is highly informative, but it does not address failure/error states or terminal job status values, which would make it fully complete for a job-status tool without an output schema.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, including the UUID format and offset continuation semantics. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the burden.

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 a specific verb and resource: it reports progress and results for a job previously submitted via walletlink_submit_job. It clearly differentiates this from sibling tools by anchoring it to the submission workflow, and the first sentence makes the tool's scope immediately obvious.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: it is the status/result companion to walletlink_submit_job, and it explicitly notes that only jobs submitted by this account are visible, so other IDs will return not found. It lacks an explicit 'use this instead of X' statement, but the context is sufficient to route an agent correctly.

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