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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds important behavior beyond them: the job keeps running server-side and is saved to the gallery regardless of client outcome, so a taskId is enough to recover a paid render. It also states the polling cadence of ~10 seconds.

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 front-loaded with the core behavior and return value, then moves to polling, recovery semantics, and a compact kind-mapping list. Despite its length, every section carries actionable information for a multi-pipeline job-status tool.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and the tool's cross-pipeline complexity, the description fully covers what the tool returns, how to poll it, which kinds it supports, and when to use sibling tools instead. The agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and route edge cases.

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 schema already documents kind, taskId, and projectId. The description adds value by mapping each kind value to the sibling tools that produce it (image, video, video-edit, music, merch-mockup, comic-export) and clarifying that merch_mockup uses taskKey while comic_export uses exportId. This goes beyond the schema but still largely reinforces structured content.

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 uses a precise verb and resource: it returns the current state and, once finished, output URL(s) for a generation job. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like aetherwave_comic_status and aetherwave_merch_mockup_status, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: poll every ~10 seconds for any job returned as state "running" or submitted with async:true, and use it even after a timeout. It also names alternatives and exceptions: comic script/draw/assemble uses aetherwave_comic_status, master_audio has no job id, and mastered audio appears in aetherwave_list_my_creations.

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