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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the full set of status values, the meaning of each, and the critical 'caption_ready' handling rule plus the per-post imageStatus field. This is exactly the behavioral disclosure an agent needs for a polling tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the return values, then the actionable caption_ready rule. Every sentence earns its place; the status enumeration is dense but directly useful rather than padding.

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 fully, enumerating the status states and the per-post imageStatus values. Nothing an agent needs to poll and correctly react to the result 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter (groupId) is already documented in the schema as 'returned from generate_posts'. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Check the status of an async post generation batch'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the many sibling status tools (get_image_status, get_task_status, get_video_shoot_status) by naming the post-generation batch scope. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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?

Provides clear operational guidance on how to act on the result ('caption_ready' means show the caption text and do not wait for images), which is exactly the decision an agent must make. It does not, however, explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling status tools or any prerequisite conditions.

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