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

readOnlyHint=true is already supplied by annotations, so the description's only real job is to add behavior beyond that and it does not. It says nothing about job states, whether results are terminal or pending, polling expectations, or the agentToken auth requirement.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency. There is no front-loaded actionable content beyond a restated title.

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 3-required-parameter tool with no output schema and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot tell what the return value represents or how this fits the preview/export workflow.

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 0% for all three required parameters (jobId, projectId, agentToken), so the description carries the full burden and adds nothing. It never mentions jobId, projectId, or the token, leaving the meaning and sourcing of every parameter undocumented.

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 verb 'checks' is vague and the resource 'a local browser preview/export request' is a restatement of the title. It does not distinguish this polling-style read from siblings like studio_request_preview or studio_request_export, which are what create such requests.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no indication that this is the follow-up call after studio_request_preview/studio_request_export, and no mention of when it should not be used. The agent must infer the relationship to siblings entirely on its own.

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