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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds useful behavioral context: it returns status and outputs, and specifies a polling delay (retryAfterMs) while running. It does not cover error handling or full response shape.

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 short sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by a compact operational rule. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-only task-status getter, the description covers purpose and polling behavior, but omits parameter guidance and output details (no output schema), leaving gaps for correct invocation.

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 single parameter taskId is not explained at all. The description implies a task identifier but gives no format, source, or usage details to compensate.

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?

The phrase 'Status and outputs of a generation task' clearly states what the tool returns, but uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb and does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_workflow or run_node.

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 polling guidance ('While it is running, wait retryAfterMs before asking again'), but offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_workflow or list_workflows, leaving selection context implied.

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