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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses the blocking cap ('up to waitSeconds, max 25'), the callAgain=true continuation signal, and the notable side-effect fact 'Never charges credits.' It omits auth/permission requirements and rate-limit behavior, so not a 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the invocation recipe and the credit guarantee; no filler.

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 with no output schema, the description conveys the key return signal (callAgain) and the blocking semantics, which is what an agent needs to drive the loop. It doesn't sketch the eventual result payload, a minor gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning by specifying that operationId is a 'status' operation obtained from a create call's job handle and that params are path/query params like {id}, which the schema alone doesn't explain.

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 ('Poll a long-running generation to completion') and ties it to the create-call workflow via the job handle, which cleanly separates it from the create-style siblings in the list.

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?

Explains how to use it (pass the status operationId from a create call's job handle) and the re-invocation loop ('invoke again to keep waiting'), giving clear context. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, which keeps it short of a 5.

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