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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose read-only safety, whether the call blocks or requires polling, what status values are possible, or when a job is terminal.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses. It is appropriately terse for this simple lookup, though it leaves important context to the schema.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain more about the return value and polling behavior. It does not describe status values, output URLs, or how slim/full differ beyond what the input schema says.

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%, and the schema fully documents both jobId and the slim/full detail enum. The description only echoes jobId and adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('status of a generation job') with the required jobId. It is distinguishable from the ryla_generate_* sibling tools because it reports status rather than initiating generation, though it does not name those 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 usage is implied by the schema note that jobId comes from a ryla_generate_* tool call, but the description itself gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or polling guidance. An agent can infer the workflow, but must rely on schema text.

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