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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: the status state machine, terminal failure semantics, member-scoped visibility, the ai.generate permission with 403 permission_denied and which roles hold it, and that reading spends no credits.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then return shape, lifecycle, usage cadence, and constraints. Every sentence carries operative information, though the explicit return-value enumeration partially duplicates the output schema.

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?

For a polling tool, the definition covers lifecycle states, terminal conditions, polling cadence, permissions, visibility scoping, and cost. With an output schema present, the return description is a bonus rather than a necessity, so nothing an agent needs to invoke this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents jobId and workspaceId in detail; schema description even repeats 'jobId returned by generate_image.' The description adds only marginal meaning (same-member visibility constraints) beyond the structured fields, 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 and resource: 'Read the state of an image started with generate_image.' It explicitly ties the tool to its sibling generate_image as the producer of the job, so an agent can distinguish polling from generation without opening either 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 (poll every few seconds while queued/processing/generating), when-to-stop (after a couple of minutes), and when-not-to-use (a failed job is final, do not poll again). It also directs the agent to consume imageUrl via create_post.

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