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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key-scoped visibility constraint and implies a read-only lookup, which is useful. However, it says nothing about result retention or expiry, whether a pending request returns a partial response, or any rate/retry limits, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for a polling tool.

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-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the usage rule; no filler. The full bilingual restatement roughly doubles length, which is presumably intentional for the audience but is still duplicated content.

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 and covers return values, the single parameter is fully documented, and the definition supplies the one rule an agent most needs (query instead of resubmitting). Only the absence of status-transition and result-lifetime context keeps it from being fully complete.

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 schema already explains that request_id is the one originally used in draw_plot. The description adds no format, syntax, or validity details beyond that, so the 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 (an existing drawing request's status and file links), plus the access scope ('within the current key's result scope'). This clearly separates it from draw_plot, which submits work rather than reading it back.

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 an explicit trigger ('Use after timeouts') and an explicit prohibition ('do not submit a duplicate task'), which effectively routes the agent away from re-calling draw_plot. It does not cover other legitimate cases, such as routine polling for a submitted job, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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