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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral context the annotations cannot: completion timing, that retryable failures can hold processing for minutes, that a hung generation can sit ~25 minutes before a terminal generation-request-timed-out status, and that an early 404 is a transient indexing artifact rather than a real error.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then progressively more detailed timing/retry guidance, then the follow-up action. Every sentence supplies information an agent needs to poll correctly; nothing is filler despite the length.

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 explained. Given a polling tool with one required param, the description covers cadence, timeouts, false-negative 404s, and the downstream retrieval path — everything needed to use it correctly.

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 single parameter's schema text already says it is the 'Generation ID returned by generate_pins_from_url'; the description's mention adds no syntax or format detail beyond that. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (poll) and resource (Pin generation status) and ties it to the originating tool generate_pins_from_url, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_copy_generation_status and get_design_regeneration_status. An agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 an explicit polling cadence (~15s), a stop condition (~30 min ceiling with the reason), retry guidance for transient 404s, and a concrete next step (call list_posts with status draft and filter by generationId). When-to-use and what-to-do-after are both spelled out.

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