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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the hard timeout behavior and that it never hangs on pending, which is valuable. However, it does not mention error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits, leaving gaps.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and result, no wasted words. Structurally efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a key behavioral trait. However, it omits input format details and error behavior, leaving room for improvement.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'assessment job_id' but does not elaborate on the format or origin of job_id. It adds some meaning but not enough to fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 polls an assessment job_id, returns status and the typed assessment when complete. It uses specific verbs ('Poll', 'Returns') and resource ('assessment job_id'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_assessments and assess_product.

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 implies usage after an assessment job is created, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. The 'Hard timeout' note provides behavioral guidance but no direct usage scenarios.

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