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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine context beyond that, namely that the response may contain in-progress image draws and a saved flag, and that the UI polls it automatically. It stops short of describing response shape details or failure behavior for an unknown lookId.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the return contents followed by the usage gate; almost every clause carries information. 'as the ClipFlux card shows it' is slightly indirect phrasing but justifies the field list.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the three things returned, including the asynchronous draw state. Nothing an agent needs to call this read-only single-look fetch is missing.

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 100% and both parameters are documented in-schema (lookId tied to design_look's 'own:...' output, channel as the offered channel). The description adds no additional meaning about lookId or channel, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Gets one of the user's designed looks') and enumerates the returned content (sample pictures or pending draws, the look in words, saved status). It is clearly singular/one-look scoped versus list_looks, though it never names that sibling outright.

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?

Explicitly says the card self-fetches while pictures are drawn and to call it 'only if the user asks about the look' – a clear when-to-use gate. It does not name alternative tools (list_looks, design_look) for the case where the user wants a different view of looks.

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