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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it enumerates the three terminal states and what each payload contains, which is critical for a polling tool with no output schema.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the polling purpose and the jobId dependency are front-loaded, followed by the state/payload breakdown.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of explaining return states and their fields. It omits polling cadence/backoff guidance, which would help an agent avoid hammering the endpoint, but nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 the single jobId parameter is fully documented with a UUID pattern. The description adds value by clarifying that the jobId may come from refresh_article as well as generate_article, whereas the schema description only mentions generate_article.

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 and resource (poll the status of a generation job) and names the two producer tools, generate_article and refresh_article, that create the jobId. An agent can distinguish this polling tool from get_article or list_articles immediately.

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?

Clearly establishes the context: use this after a generate_article or refresh_article call, keyed by the returned jobId. It does not explicitly say when to stop polling or route to get_article once status is 'ready', but the workflow is strongly implied by the status semantics.

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