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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuine behavioral value by revealing that the result remains inspectable after failure or cancellation and that resolved_export and outputs are accessible, which goes beyond what the annotations alone communicate.

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 structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Poll an owned export task') and then adds the most important behavioral caveat. Every phrase earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema/annotation data.

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 one-parameter polling operation with a rich output schema and strong safety annotations, the description is complete. It covers the action, the ownership constraint, and the noteworthy failure/cancellation behavior. The output schema handles return-value details, so nothing critical 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?

The schema only defines task_id as a UUID-string with zero description coverage, so the description must carry weight. It contextualizes the parameter as belonging to an 'owned export task,' which is helpful, but it does not explicitly state that task_id is the export task identifier or explain the ownership requirement in detail.

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 is specific and action-oriented: 'Poll an owned export task' names the verb, the resource, and the ownership constraint. It also differentiates from siblings like export_animation and cancel_animation_export by focusing on polling/inspection, so an agent can select it correctly 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?

The phrase 'Poll an owned export task' provides clear context for when to call it: after starting an export and wanting to check status. It also signals a key use case, 'even after failure or cancellation,' but does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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