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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds behavioral context by specifying the polling pattern and that full results come only when status=completed. This goes beyond the annotations and does not contradict 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 concise, with three short sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: state the main action, give the polling trigger, and describe the completion condition. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 presence of a detailed input schema and an output schema, the description covers the essential usage context: what the tool does, when to call it, and what result to expect. It does not need to explain return values or parameter specifics since the schema handles those.

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 input schema has complete descriptions for all three parameters, including defaults and effects, so the description does not need to add param semantics. The description's mention of job_id origin and result conditions adds no new parameter-level information beyond the schema.

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's function with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('status and results of an analysis job'). It also ties the tool's use to the job lifecycle (after analyze_track or payment), distinguishing it from sibling tools like analyze_track and request_payment_link.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool: poll after analyze_track returns job_id or after the user pays via request_payment_link. It does not list when-not-to-use cases or alternatives, but the provided timing guidance is clear and actionable.

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