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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the polling cadence constraint and the requirement that tokens come from the most recent response. It stops short of describing pagination or error behavior, but this is a solid addition over the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by the call constraints and the return summary. Every sentence carries information; slightly wordy but no filler that could be cut without losing guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still notes the completed design and shareable url. Combined with the polling and token-sourcing constraints, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, and the description adds no per-parameter syntax. It does clarify that both job_id and continuation_token must be sourced from the most recent response, but user_intent is never mentioned. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Check the status and result') plus resource ('image layer-separation job'), and explicitly ties itself to the separate-image-layers sibling that starts the job. An agent can distinguish it from that sibling without opening either schema.

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 only call with the job_id and continuation_token from the most recent separate-image-layers or get-separate-image-layers-job response, and never before polling_policy.wait_seconds have elapsed. It also frames the tool as an internal lifecycle action rather than a user-selectable one, leaving nothing to inference.

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