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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavior beyond these annotations: it lists observable status transitions alert the success payload contents (model, versions, render URLs, animations) and the expected polling latency. This meaningfully informs agent behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second describes success outputs, and the third gives polling instructions. Every sentence contributes distinct information with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the essential operational details: statuses, success contents, and polling frequency. The only minor gap is not clarifying how this relates to start_lowpoly_generate or how it differs from get_inference_job, but this is not critical for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents task_id and rd_api_key adequately. The description does not add parameter-level details, but with full schema coverage 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns the status of a Low-Poly job and enumerates the possible states: pending, running, succeeded, or failed. It also says what is returned on success, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_inference_job or get_lowpoly_model. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description explicitly gives polling guidance: 'Poll every 10-20 seconds; jobs take minutes.' This tells an agent when and how often to call the tool. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or conditions for when not to use it, but the polling context is clear and actionable.

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