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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the polling cadence, a finite timeout, and the state transitions (running/refreshing, moved/publishedSlug, terminal failure/success states). This adds meaningful behavioral context, though it stops short of specifying exact timeout duration or return shape.

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?

Three dense sentences carry the full state machine, polling interval, timeout guarantee, and stopping conditions. The most important directive comes first, and there is no filler or repetition of schema/annotation data.

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 state machine is well specified and the tool is simple (one parameter), which helps completeness. However, with no output schema, the description does not describe the actual return value's fields or how the agent should read the status from the response, nor does it state the finite timeout's value. These gaps leave a capable but not fully self-contained definition.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must define the sole parameter. It identifies 'slug' as a memo slug returned by a prior operation, which is useful, but it does not elaborate on provenance or expected format beyond what the schema pattern already provides, leaving the parameter partially under-specified.

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 clear action ('Check...'), a specific resource ('returned memo slug'), and a state-machine behavior. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool to distinguish it from, but the polling/following language makes its role distinct from lookup, read, request, and search tools.

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 explicit operational guidance: when to wait, when to follow, when to stop, and how often to poll. It does not explicitly state when this tool should be used instead of alternatives or what preceding call produces the slug, but 'returned memo slug' implies it follows a request flow.

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