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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds behavior the annotations cannot express: the call blocks server-side for up to ~45s and returns early when research finishes, so the agent must not sleep on its own. It also documents the expected duration (~5-10 min of repeated calls) and the specific error code (notFound on a bad applicationId). This is exactly the extra context the annotations bar leaves room for.

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?

Front-loaded with the return payload, then bulked out with the polling contract, and it uses headers to make the branching states scannable. It runs long and repeats the keep-calling instruction several ways ('call it again', 'keep calling', 'do NOT hand control back'), but that emphasis is arguably load-bearing for a tool whose main failure mode is premature abandonment.

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?

Covers the branch-relevant state machine, the polling contract, the response format choice, and the error case; an output schema exists, so return-value detail needn't be restated. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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 100%, and the schema already documents both parameters, including that json returns the raw StatusView. The description's responseFormat note ('use json when you need to branch programmatically on status / deck.state') adds only a small amount of selection guidance beyond the schema, so it sits at the baseline rather than above it.

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?

Opens with a concrete verb+resource ('The primary status endpoint. Returns the full current state of an application') and enumerates exactly what that state contains (status, email verification, deck state, intake questions, nextAction). This clearly distinguishes it from the mutation-oriented siblings (create_application, verify_email, submit_answers, update_application) without the agent needing to open a schema.

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 states when to call (after verify_email, on founder request, to read intake questions at status == intake) and, critically, how to behave in the polling loop versus the terminal states. It names the sibling verify_email as the preceding step and gives an explicit stop condition ('keep calling until status leaves researching'), leaving nothing to inference.

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