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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds important context beyond annotations: it costs no credits, requires OAuth or an API key header, should be polled every 10 seconds, and reflects render completion via card status and media_url.

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 and efficient: purpose first, then polling cadence, then authentication requirements. Each sentence provides necessary operational information without 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 simple one-parameter read-only polling tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description supplies the missing authentication, credit-cost, and polling-cadence context. Nothing essential for correct invocation is absent.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the single canvas_id parameter is fully documented in the schema as the board id from list_canvases or create_canvas. The description adds no parameter syntax or constraints beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Re-read a board'), identifies it as equivalent to get_canvas, and explains its polling role during generation-card rendering. An agent can distinguish it from list_canvases, create_canvas, and other siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly says to call it every 10 seconds while a generation card is rendering and explains the success condition (card status becomes done with media_url). It does not explicitly say when to prefer get_canvas instead or when polling should stop, so it is clear but not fully exclusive.

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