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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description still adds real behavioral content: no render, cancellation or refund is started, 'pending' must not be read as completion, only frame URLs and settlement fields count as evidence, and returned URLs are signed and expire in minutes. That expiry warning is operationally decisive and appears nowhere in the structured fields.

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?

Four compact sentences, each carrying distinct information: what it reads, what it costs, how to interpret a pending status, and how long URLs last. The identification sentence comes first and nothing is repeated.

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 one parameter, full schema coverage, and rich annotations, the definition covers the calling contract, the cost model, and the interpretation of results well. It does not describe the shape of the settlement fields it tells the agent to trust, which is a minor gap given there is no output schema.

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 clientRequestId description already spells out the UUID semantics, including not minting a replacement ID. The description's 'using its original clientRequestId' merely reinforces the schema rather than adding new meaning, so baseline 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 and resource ('Read the saved state of an earlier soclo_image_frames request') and anchors the identifier as the *original* clientRequestId, which immediately separates it from the render-starting sibling soclo_image_frames. An agent can identify this as a pure status read without opening the schema.

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 a concrete trigger ('for example after an interruption') and rules out side effects ('starts no render, cancellation or refund'), which is exactly the reassurance an agent needs before retrying after a failure. It stops short of naming soclo_image_recover as the alternative for resuming work, leaving the recover-vs-read choice implicit.

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