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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the return includes both a status and a result URL, which is useful context, but says nothing about status values, polling cadence, or failure states.

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 compact sentence, front-loaded with the returned data. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing parameter and behavioral detail noted elsewhere.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain return values; it partially does (status + result URL) but omits the set of possible status values and how to poll. For a one-parameter status-check tool this is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for the single jobId parameter, yet it never names or explains it. 'A generation you created' loosely implies jobId identifies the generation, but no format, source, or validation detail is provided.

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 clearly identifies the resource (a generation you created) and what it returns (status and result URL), letting an agent tell it apart from the render_* creation tools and preview_* tools. It lacks an explicit verb, but the intent — retrieve status/result — is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'a generation you created' implies the natural workflow (call after a render_* tool), but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus preview_generation or the render_* siblings, and no mention of prerequisites like polling.

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