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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the exact return vocabulary ('processing', 'completed', 'failed'), which an agent needs given there is no output schema, though it says nothing about polling cadence or failure semantics.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the purpose front-loaded and the exception placed after it. Every clause carries information the agent can act on.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotations, the description supplies the missing piece (the set of possible status values) in lieu of an output schema. It could be slightly more complete about how frequently to poll, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is absent.

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 is fully documented as 'The task id returned by an async tool'. The description only loosely adds context by naming the task-producing operations; no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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+resource ('Check the status of an async task') and scopes it to image edits and video processing, so the intent is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings that do nearly the same thing (get_generation_status, get_image_status, get_video_shoot_status), leaving the agent to guess which status endpoint applies.

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?

Gives an explicit when-not ('For post generation batches, prefer waiting for the automatic notification instead'), which is clear routing guidance. It stops short of naming an alternative status tool or saying when polling is appropriate, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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