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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond those annotations by indicating that the response includes status, version artifacts such as render URLs and animations, and any running job, which helps the agent anticipate the tool's output.

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 a single compact line with no filler and front-loads the resource before listing the salient response categories. It could be improved by using a complete sentence with a verb, but it is efficient.

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 read-only fetch with an output schema and fully documented parameters, the core invocation details are covered enough. The main gap is the lack of routing guidance versus get_lowpoly_job, though the schema's asset_id description partially compensates by referencing the generating job.

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%; both asset_id and rd_api_key are documented in the input schema. The description itself adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline score 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 identifies the resource (Low-Poly model) and the returned content categories: status, versions with render URLs and animations, and any running job. It does not use an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns,' but combined with the title it is clear enough to distinguish from lowpoly job-specific siblings.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_lowpoly_job, list_lowpoly_models, or start_lowpoly_generate. An agent must infer selection criteria from sibling names and the schema's asset_id provenance.

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