get_optimization_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds legitimate extra context beyond that: it reports estimated API cost and advises polling cadence. It still omits whether polling has rate limits or whether the reported cost is a live or final estimate.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core capability is front-loaded ahead of the polling advice. It is efficiently sized for the tool's simplicity, though minimal.

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?

With no output schema, the description should convey more about return shape; it does say progress plus estimated cost at a high level. But it leaves 'local' undefined and does not explain the lifecycle relationship with get_optimization_result, which matters for this three-tool workflow.

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?

There is one required string parameter, run_id, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining it. It does not mention run_id at all, nor where the value comes from (presumably submit_optimization). The name is fairly self-evident, so this is only a modest gap.

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 specific verb ('Read') and resource ('local job progress and estimated API cost'), which clearly separates it from submit_optimization and cancel_optimization. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_optimization_result, which is the closest sibling and the one an agent is most likely to confuse it with.

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?

'Poll at reasonable intervals' implies the tool is meant for repeated status checks, which is useful implied guidance. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs. get_optimization_result, no when-not guidance, and no indication of what a terminal state looks like before switching to the result tool.

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