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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns without contradiction. It adds valuable behavioral context about terminal vs. non-terminal states and advises treating any non-terminal status as still building, which goes beyond the schema and annotations.

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?

The description is efficiently structured, with the main purpose front-loaded and a clear second paragraph for the critical distinction from sibling tools. Every sentence contributes essential information; no wasted words.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's context: state semantics, polling workflow, and exclusions. Given the simple schema and presence of an output schema, it provides enough information for an agent to select and use this tool correctly without ambiguity.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the project_id parameter. The description only restates 'the project to check' without adding new semantic detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool checks a project's creation/deployment state with specific verbs and resources. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like dreamagent_get_edit_progress by clarifying what it does NOT report (AI edit progress).

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use after dreamagent_create_project for polling until ready/failed, and whenever the user asks if a project is ready/live. It also names the alternative tool for edit progress, satisfying when-not-to-use criteria.

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