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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the polling behavior and return content, but it does not mention potential errors, timeouts, or whether the operation is strictly read-only, leaving some behavioral aspects implicit.

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 concise and well-structured, with no redundant words. It front-loads the key action and outcome and adds the polling instruction in a clear second sentence.

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 single-parameter tool, the description provides enough context: it states what will be returned (status and screenshots) and how to use it (poll until completed). It does not detail output format, but that is not essential for basic 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?

The only parameter, job_id, is described as the ID returned by submit_preview, which precisely tells the agent where to obtain the value. This fully covers the parameter's meaning and origin.

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 tool gets status and screenshots for a preview job, making the primary purpose obvious. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_screenshot, but the resource and action are specific enough to avoid confusion.

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 provides direct usage guidance by instructing the agent to poll until status is 'completed', which is exactly when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer alternatives, but the polling instruction gives clear context for use after submit_preview.

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