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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: results are retained only 6 hours and are visible only to the paying account. It does not explain failure states or what a missing/expired taskKey yields, keeping it from 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?

A single tightly written sentence with the cost signal ('Free.') front-loaded and the scope details parenthesized. No wasted words, though the parenthetical packs two distinct facts together and could be split for scanability.

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 carries the return-value burden and does state that status and mockup URLs are returned. Retention window and per-account visibility are covered. What is missing is only edge-case behavior (expired tasks, still-rendering state).

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?

One required parameter (taskKey) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate but only partially does: it implies the key comes from a render started by aetherwave_merch_mockup, but never names taskKey or states its format/source explicitly. Better than nothing, below the 4 baseline for undocumented params.

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+resource: retrieving status and mockup URLs for a render. It explicitly ties the artifact to the sibling that created it (aetherwave_merch_mockup), which helps disambiguate among 30 siblings. Slightly terse about what 'status' values mean, so not a full 5.

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 phrase 'of a render started by aetherwave_merch_mockup' implies this is a follow-up poll to that tool, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no polling cadence, and no comparison to the generic aetherwave_get_job sibling that might also retrieve job status.

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