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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds significant behavioral details: the meaning of 'stalled', the fact that no run is active in that state, that server restarts or failures can end runs, and the explicit warning never to treat a stopped run as finished. This is critical for an agent to avoid misinterpreting stale status.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core value ('Where a comic is and what to do next'), and every sentence adds necessary information. The enum explanation and the stalled-run caveat are placed efficiently and do not waste space.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently enumerates the returned data: project status, drawing state, failed panels with reasons, assembled page URLs, character reference images, and nextStep. It also handles the optional projectId behavior and the critical stalled-state scenario, making the tool fully usable without further documentation.

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 description does not need to duplicate parameter details. It does reinforce that omitting projectId lists recent projects and references the panels detail option, but most parameter meaning is already well documented in the schema.

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 states the tool's specific purpose: check a comic's progress, report status, drawing state, failed panels, URLs, character references, and nextStep. It clearly distinguishes this status-checking tool from the sibling tools like aetherwave_comic_draw and aetherwave_comic_redraw_panel.

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?

The description clearly explains when to use the tool and even provides conditional guidance: if drawing is 'stalled', aetherwave_comic_draw must be called again, and a stopped run must never be treated as finished. It lacks explicit exclusions for sibling tools, but the context makes the intended use clear.

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