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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing the set of possible return states, including that a build may still be in progress or may have failed with a reason — information an agent needs to interpret a response. It stops short of saying whether repeated polling is expected or how long a build typically takes.

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 status question is front-loaded, which is good, but the sentence is a single tangled construction with a five-item parenthetical that is hard to parse on first read. Every clause carries information, yet the packaging costs clarity.

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?

As a one-parameter read-only getter with no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so by enumerating the possible outcomes including the failure case. The remaining gap is operational: how to treat a 'still building' response and what 'what to do next' concretely means.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself stating 'The build_id from build.' The description adds no meaning about the identifier beyond that, so the schema is doing all the work and the baseline 3 applies.

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 the resource (a build) and enumerates what is returned: in-progress status or one of several terminal answers (saved draft with link, question, template, app to connect, failure reason). That is specific enough to distinguish it from the sibling 'build', which is the creator. It never uses an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'poll', so the framing is a little oblique rather than crisply stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'still building' suggests polling a build started elsewhere, and 'what to do next' hints at follow-up actions, but neither the timing (call once vs. poll) nor the alternative tools for acting on the result are named. The dependency on the 'build' tool appears only in the schema, not in the description.

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