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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the call is free, rendered links are signed and expire in 30 minutes, and there is a post awaiting a human in the studio (a human-in-the-loop condition). This is useful non-obvious disclosure, though the signed-link and pending-post implications could be spelled out more clearly.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with 'Free' and then lists the response contents compactly. The em-dash list is dense and largely earns its place, though the poetic framing ('the words it wrote', 'waiting for the person in the studio') costs some precision.

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 convey return contents, and it does: step statuses, generated text, signed render links, spend, and a pending post. It is complete enough to set expectations for a read-only status tool, though the exact shape of the payload remains only loosely described.

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 both parameters (flow, run) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint details about flow/run beyond the fact that a run belongs to a flow. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 resource (a flow run's status) and enumerates what the response covers: step statuses, written words, rendered links, spend, and a pending post. This distinguishes it from the media-status siblings (get_image_status, get_music_status, get_video_status), though the phrasing is stylized enough that the core verb 'get/report status' must be inferred.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives. An agent could infer this is used after run_flow to poll a run, but the description never says so, nor does it distinguish this from list_flows. 'Free' hints at cost but is not usage guidance.

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