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

Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint it discloses that jobs keep running server-side after a client failure and are saved to the gallery regardless, so a taskId is sufficient to recover a paid render — important operational context for a polling tool. It also maps each kind to the tools that emit it and notes taskId aliases (taskKey for merch_mockup, exportId for comic_export), which annotations cannot express.

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?

Purpose and polling guidance are front-loaded before the kind reference table, and the bullets are scannable. It is dense and the closing note about audio fallbacks is slightly tangential, but nearly every line carries routing information an agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return contract itself — current state plus output URLs once finished — and it also resolves the tool's biggest ambiguity by pinning down taskId aliases and per-kind routing. Nothing required to call it correctly or interpret the response 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the kind→tool mapping table tells the agent exactly which value to pass for each producer, and it flags projectId as required only for kind 'comic-export'. It largely restates the schema's taskId/projectId wording, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 concrete verb+resource (returns current state, then output URLs), scopes it to jobs returned as "running" or submitted with async:true, and explicitly carves out the cases handled by aetherwave_comic_status and aetherwave_list_my_creations. An agent can separate this from aetherwave_merch_mockup_status and the comic tools 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 any async submission, after a client timeout) and when-not-to-use (comic script/draw/assemble goes to aetherwave_comic_status; master_audio and generate_speech have no job id), plus a concrete polling cadence of ~10 s. Alternatives and the conditions selecting them are named outright.

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