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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the asynchronous/polling nature and the meaning of the `configured` flag, which is not in the annotations. It does not cover failure states, timeouts, or how long polling may take.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose followed by the polling behavior. No filler, though the backticked field name references a return value without a full return-shape explanation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be fully explained, and the description still clarifies the key `configured` field. Combined with the polling guidance, an agent can call this correctly; the only real gap is the undocumented identifiers, which are likely sourced from the prior submit response.

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?

All three parameters (session_id, order_id, item_id) have 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden and it says nothing about any of them. An agent cannot tell from the definition where these identifiers come from or whether they are optional handles from the prior submit call.

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 whether the submitted page mapping has finished applying. It is clear what the tool returns conceptually, but it never distinguishes itself from sibling polling/status tools such as prepress_status, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 concrete usage context: call after submitting a mapping, and if `configured` is false, wait a few seconds and call again rather than re-submitting. That implicitly routes the agent away from prepress_submit_mapping, but no sibling is named and no explicit 'do not use this for X' exclusion is given.

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