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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuine behavioral context: it names the polled tool, lists the progress fields returned (status, progressPercent, creditsReserved/credits, error), and gives the completion transition. It does not state a polling interval/frequency, which is a minor gap.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the return shape, then the next step. No waste; every sentence earns its place.

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 annotations covering safety, the description supplies everything needed: the originating tool, the returned progress fields, the error channel, and the completion workflow. No output schema exists, yet the description compensates by enumerating the return fields.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful linkage beyond the schema by tying jobId to 'started by build_influencer_vault' and describing it as a returned build job id, reinforcing the parent-child relationship between the two tools.

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 status), resource (vault build), and names the originating tool build_influencer_vault. An agent can immediately distinguish it from build_influencer_vault or list_influencer_assets.

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 identifies itself as a polling tool for a build started by build_influencer_vault, and routes the agent forward: when status is 'completed', call list_influencer_assets. Clear when-to-use and next-step guidance.

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