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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not burdened with the safety story. It still adds real behavioral context beyond them: the call returns data instead of opening a UI card, and it can return either an intermediate status or finished media. It stops short of noting any rate limit or polling backoff, which would matter given that polling is the core use case.

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 action and followed by the constraint. Nothing is redundant, though the clause 'as data, without opening another card' is slightly abstract and could be stated more plainly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the read-only profile. The remaining gap is the identifier's provenance and the handling of still-pending results (how to interpret a non-final status), which is only hinted at.

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%, and the single required parameter generation_id is only loosely anchored by the phrase 'a RoomLab.app creation'. The description never says what form the identifier takes or where an agent obtains one, so the burden falls on the caller to infer it.

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: check a RoomLab.app creation and return its status or finished media. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling creation tools with the clarifying phrase 'without opening another card', which tells an agent this is a non-mutating retrieval path rather than one of the many render/generate siblings.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions ('when no card is available or the user asks to check a result') and an explicit anti-pattern ('do not repeatedly poll alongside an active card'). This is a rare case where both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are stated, including the alternative (the auto-polling card).

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