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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description adds genuine behavioral value on top: it waits server-side, it should not be resubmitted, and it renders an interactive viewer on completion. The main gap is that it doesn't say what happens if the wait expires before the design finishes (partial result vs. retry).

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?

Three short sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the cautions follow. The clause 'No terminal commands, account checks or artifact-list plumbing needed' is slightly cryptic as a list of negatives, but it earns its place as agent 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 explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, for a polling/continuation tool with zero schema description coverage, the definition omits the key behavior an agent needs: what to do when the pending design is still not complete after the wait.

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 0% for two parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It only vaguely gestures at wait behavior ('waits briefly server-side') without explaining wait_seconds, its 0-20 bound, or what job_id refers to. Neither parameter's semantics are meaningfully clarified.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Continue a pending design and display its interactive solid 3D viewer when complete.' The word 'pending' distinguishes it from create_design_preview, implying this continues an already-created job. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it contrasts with, but the purpose is clear.

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 concrete when-to-use context ('Continue a pending design') and an explicit prohibition with rationale ('do not resubmit the job'), plus guidance to skip terminal commands, account checks, and artifact-list plumbing. It doesn't name specific alternative tools such as get_job or get_artifact, so guidance is clear but not fully explicit about alternatives.

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