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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: preview URLs are display-only fallbacks, failed jobs return safe error details, status can remain Created while queued, and UI model names map to specific model_slug values. No contradictions with annotations.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-line purpose and then packs dense, useful details about previews, error types, and status behavior. It is somewhat long and repeats the model_slug mapping already present in the schema, but each sentence still contributes operational value.

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 single-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers status transitions, returned fields, failure payloads, preview URL semantics, and polling guidance. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its response.

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% for the single generation_id parameter, so the schema already documents the parameter. The description does not add new meaning about generation_id itself; it lists return fields and behaviors, which is useful but not parameter-specific. Baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check generation job status.' It clearly distinguishes this status-checking tool from result-fetching siblings like get_generation_results by focusing on job progression and return metadata rather than final outputs.

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 provides practical usage guidance: avoid tight polling loops while status remains Created, use completed previews directly, and never Markdown-embed result URLs. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or give exclusion criteria, but the intended usage context is clear.

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