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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety bar is low. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a rate-limit-style polling constraint and the resultReady state transition that hands off to get_result_link.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the handoff rule, then the polling limit. Every sentence carries operational value and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values do not need explaining, and the description covers the main agent decision (poll vs. fetch result). It omits failure/expiry behavior for an invalid or completed-and-purged job id, which is the only notable gap for a simple single-parameter status tool.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself explaining that id is the job id from start_edit or list_library. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"Status and progress of an edit" names a specific resource (an edit job) and the two things returned, which distinguishes it from siblings like start_edit or get_result_link that create or fetch output. It is clear but never explicitly says it is a polling/status-check tool for a job 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 gives an explicit fork: when resultReady is true, call get_result_link instead of continuing to poll, plus a polling cadence cap of one call per 10 seconds. What's missing is the converse guidance (e.g., keep polling while not ready, or what to do if the job fails), so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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