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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only and idempotent. The description adds value by revealing that completed jobs include a media asset ID and download URL, and by implying incomplete jobs do not. This is useful behavioral context beyond the annotation flags.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every phrase earns its place; no fluff or repetition of schema/annotations. Very concise and effective.

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 an output schema present and strong annotations, the description need not explain every return field. It explains the key distinction between completed and non-completed jobs, which complements the structured data. Slightly missing polling guidance or error-state info, but not critical for a simple read operation.

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% for both parameters, so the schema fully documents their meaning. The description does not add any additional insight into parameter semantics, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the tool checks a generation job and specifies what completed jobs return (media asset ID and download URL). It distinguishes from sibling generation creation/cancel tools, though the phrase 'queued generation' is slightly ambiguous about whether it handles all job states.

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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used after a generation_*_create call or contrast with generation_jobs_cancel. Usage context is only implied by the presence of sibling tools and the parameter schema.

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