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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real behavioral value beyond that: the exact return shape (kind, status, progressPct, eta, plus links when finished) and the motivation (avoid refetching the full payload). No output schema exists, so this disclosure matters. It stops short of enumerating possible status values or what happens for an unknown/expired id.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the purpose and ending on the payoff (poll without refetching). The id-flavor clause is slightly over-specified given the schema repeats it, but nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema status tool this is nearly complete: it defines scope, input flavors, and returned fields. The gaps are the absence of status value semantics (what terminal vs in-progress looks like) and failure handling for invalid ids, both of which would help an agent write a polling loop.

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 coverage is 100% and the taskId description already lists all accepted id flavors, so the description largely restates structured data ('the task_id or job_id from generate_video', 'a generation_id or a rendering request_id'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the semantics.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Polling-friendly status check for one of your jobs') with an explicit enumeration of the job types it covers (picture, video, audio). It never names the obvious competing siblings (get_video_status, get_audio_status, get_depth_map_status), so an agent can't tell from purpose alone whether this supersedes them.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'so you can poll without refetching the full payload' tells the agent this is the lightweight polling path, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not and no routing against get_video_status or get_audio_status, which overlap heavily with the video/audio cases it claims to handle.

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