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

The description discloses the return shape ('{id, status}') and explains how to interpret success ('succeeded' → read result) and failure ('failed' → read error). It also describes long-polling behavior, including the max wait of 60 seconds, making the tool's behavior fully transparent.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured paragraph. It leads with the main purpose, then explains the response format and polling behavior. There is no unnecessary repetition or verbosity; each sentence adds useful 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?

For a simple polling tool, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how to use it (including polling and long-polling), what it returns, and how to handle results. It does not require additional context about authentication or error handling beyond reading the error field, which is sufficient.

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?

The schema describes 'wait' with a default and range, but the description adds context by explaining how wait relates to long-polling and the max value (60). It also clarifies that 'id' is the job id returned by any tool, which is not explicitly in the schema. However, the parameter meanings are fairly clear from the schema, so it only adds marginal value.

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 description clearly states the action ('Poll'), the resource ('the status of a generation job'), and the context ('started by any tool'). It also distinguishes itself by mentioning it works for jobs from any tool, which is helpful among siblings.

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 explicit guidance on polling frequency and long-polling: 'Poll every few seconds, or pass wait: 30 to long-poll'. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like listApiJobs, but the usage is implied by its purpose. Could be slightly more explicit about when to use this over listing jobs.

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