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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds important long-poll semantics: wait_sec holds the call up to 45 seconds until something changes, and it previews returned checkpoints and app links. It does not cover auth or error behavior.

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 front-loads the status view and stays compact, with every clause describing a returned field or parameter behavior. The list-heavy sentence is dense but not padded.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what is returned: plan-build progress, run status, department, spend vs cap, checkpoints, next steps, and the finished film link. It also explains long-polling. Minor gaps remain around project_id meaning and error behavior, but it is complete enough for a read-only status tool.

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 67%, with project_id undocumented and plan_id only vaguely described as 'A plan from direct'. The description clarifies plan_id as a Co-Director plan and explains wait_sec as a hold-until-change mechanism up to 45 seconds instead of polling, adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema.

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 names a specific resource, production status, and enumerates the fields returned, so an agent can tell it retrieves current production state. It distinguishes project-scoped status from plan-scoped status via plan_id, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_plan or list_projects.

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?

It gives conditional usage for plan_id (follow a Co-Director plan instead) and wait_sec (long-poll instead of polling), plus notes it is free and read-only. It does not state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools.

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