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

Annotations already declare readOnly/ non-destructive safety. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the terminal vs progressive state model ('creating', 'building', 'deploying', 'ai_provisioning') and the instruction to treat any non-terminal status as still building. It does not discuss polling frequency or rate limits, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then state semantics, then the routing note. Every sentence carries information and there is no padding.

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 an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return fields, and it supplies the state interpretation and the sibling disambiguation an agent needs. Nothing required to call it correctly 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?

Only one parameter (project_id) and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format or identifier guidance beyond the schema; 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 (check) and resource (project's creation/deployment state) and explicitly differentiates from the sibling dreamagent_get_edit_progress. An agent can tell it apart from get_edit_progress and list_projects without opening a 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 explicit when-to-use: after dreamagent_create_project, polling until ready or failed, and when the user asks whether a project is ready/live. It also names the alternative for edit progress, so no inference is required.

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