webmaster_get_pro_export_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so 'Read-only' adds nothing. The only added context is that SUCCESS carries a url and FAILED is terminal, which is useful but thin given an output schema exists.

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 compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 output schema covers return values, so the description need not explain them. However, both parameters are undocumented and the link to the export-start tool that produces task_id is missing, leaving an agent to guess at the call sequence.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description says nothing about host_id or task_id. With zero coverage the description must compensate, and it does not — notably it never says where task_id comes from (presumably webmaster_start_pro_export).

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (status of an enhanced export task) and enumerates the possible states, so it is distinguishable from webmaster_start_pro_export and webmaster_list_pro_dates. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the polling companion to webmaster_start_pro_export. There is no statement of when to call it, how often to poll, or what to do when a task is not yet finished, and no alternative is named.

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