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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations: cost is free on both meters, absent fields mean 'not measured' rather than false, and foreign job IDs return not found. This meaningfully helps an agent interpret results and avoid incorrect conclusions.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides essential caveats in a compact structure. Every sentence adds value, from cost behavior to absent-field semantics to account scoping, without filler or repetition.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining results: progress counts, completed results, billing, cost implications, absent-field semantics, and authorization limits. This is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly and interpret its response.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantics for job_id by explaining ownership and not-found behavior, which helps an agent reason about invalid or foreign IDs. It does not add offset detail, but the schema already covers that fully.

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 clearly states the tool reports progress and results for a specific background job and ties it to walletlink_submit_job. It distinguishes the tool from sibling walletlink operations by naming the job-oriented counterpart and scoping visibility to jobs submitted by the current account.

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 establishes the intended context: it is for jobs previously submitted with walletlink_submit_job, and it explicitly warns that only this account's jobs are visible. It does not name explicit exclusions or alternatives, but siblings make the role obvious and the constraints are clear.

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