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

Annotations already establish this is a safe, non-destructive, non-open-world read. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: the call blocks for up to `wait` seconds, and show_sheet=true attaches an image to the response. That blocking semantics is exactly the kind of trait an agent needs to plan around and is not derivable from the annotations.

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 compact sentences with no waste. The core action and its blocking behavior come first, and the finished-clip result details follow. Every clause carries information.

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 must carry the return contract, and it only partially does so: it names probe and a contact sheet path for finished clips but never describes the status field itself (e.g. pending/running/failed) or what an incomplete result looks like. Adequate for a simple poll, but an agent cannot fully anticipate the response shape.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (wait as long-poll seconds, task_id format, show_sheet effect). The description largely restates wait and show_sheet rather than adding new semantics; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: returns an Ad Agent task's status. The long-poll behavior and the finished-clip result contents (probe, sheet path) further pin down what the tool actually does. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but no sibling provides task polling, so differentiation is not a real risk.

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 implied rather than stated: the description describes waiting for a task to finish, which suggests it is polled after a start tool, and the schema notes task_id comes 'from a start tool'. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of retry or polling cadence, and no stated alternative.

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