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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: it's a polling tool, it returns status/progress, completed state attaches rendered assets as resource links, and the result carries a dashboard viewUrl. It doesn't state any polling interval or terminal error states, but the completion behavior is well disclosed.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, each earning its place: what it does, what completion yields, and the follow-up sibling. Front-loaded with the action and zero filler.

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 2-param polling tool with a full schema and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the lifecycle, completion payload description, and downstream linkage. No output schema exists, and the description conveys the key return concepts (status/progress, asset links, viewUrl), which is sufficient; a bit more on failure/in-progress polling guidance would make it a 5.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema (jobId explicitly notes it comes from generate_influencer_snack). The description restates the jobId lineage but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb+resource (poll a snack pack job) and explicitly ties the lifecycle to the sibling that creates it (generate_influencer_snack) and the sibling that lists the finished result (list_influencer_snacks). An agent can distinguish this from get_snack and get_job without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly names the prerequisite (started by generate_influencer_snack) and the downstream action (list_influencer_snacks will then include the finished pack). The lifecycle sequence makes when-to-use vs. siblings unambiguous.

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