query_history_compare_status

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, and the description adds only the bare hint that a result may be partial via the word 'progress'. It says nothing about terminal states, whether polling is expected, or what happens for an unknown job_id, so it adds little beyond the annotation.

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?

A single short sentence fragment with no filler — appropriately sized. It is front-loaded but under-specified rather than concise in the informative sense.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain what 'progress' and 'results' look like and when the job is done, but it does not. Combined with zero parameter documentation, it is not sufficient for an agent to call this correctly in a polling loop.

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?

The single parameter job_id has 0% schema description coverage and the description says nothing about it — not where the id comes from (presumably query_history_compare_start) nor its format. The description does not compensate for the documentation 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 phrase names the resource (a before/after comparison) and what is returned (progress and results), so the purpose is inferable. But there is no verb, and it never says this is a status poll for a job started by a sibling such as query_history_compare_start, so it does not distinguish itself from query_history_compare_candidates or query_history_compare_cancel.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no statement that this is the polling step following query_history_compare_start. The agent must infer the entire workflow from the tool name alone.

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