Asynchronous mission status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds value by explaining the orphaned-after-restart behavior, which is not visible in the schema or annotations. It stops short of describing the full set of possible status values in the response.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is stated first, followed by the key edge-case behavior, and every clause contributes useful information.

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 simple read-only status tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is mostly complete. The main gap is that it does not enumerate the possible status results or clarify how mission_status_job differs from mission_status, but the essential calling behavior is covered.

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%, so parameters are already documented by name and purpose. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining when project_id and mission_id should be supplied, tying them to the persisted-status/orphaned case.

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 the tool reports the status of a mission job, which is clear and specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool mission_status, so an agent may need to inspect both schemas to choose between them.

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 concrete usage context: after a server restart, pass project_id and mission_id to identify orphaned jobs. It does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives, but the special-case instruction is actionable and specific.

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