Collect a running measurement

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

Even with readOnlyHint=true, the description adds valuable behavior: it always answers immediately, polling cadence, the hard wall-clock limit context, and the duplicate-start warning. This goes well beyond annotation hints and helps the agent avoid common mistakes.

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 quite long but every sentence carries useful operational guidance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then gives necessary context and warnings. A little repetition with the schema exists, but it does not feel bloated.

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?

For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, this description is complete. It explains the polling loop, the return behavior ('exactly what the tool would have returned'), and the most common pitfall. Nothing essential 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 explains job_id and omitting it for the most recent job. The description reinforces this but does not add much new parameter-specific meaning beyond the existing schema text.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Collect a measurement that was handed back as a job.' It clearly distinguishes check_status from siblings by explaining that long-running tools return a job id and this tool retrieves the result with that id.

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?

It explicitly states when to call it ('Call this with that id, about every 15 seconds'), what to do after ('until it reports done'), and what not to do ('Do not start the same measurement again while one is running'). It also names the sibling tools that produce the job id, giving clear context versus alternatives.

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