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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the status enum values (Queued, Building, Staged = ready to deploy, Live, Failed) and noting that it returns errors and links, which helps an agent interpret results during polling.

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 with zero waste. The return-value details are front-loaded, followed immediately by the usage hint, and every clause earns its place.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so adequately by listing status, errors, and links. It could be more complete by mentioning error handling or authentication requirements, but for a read-only polling tool with annotations covering safety, it is largely sufficient.

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 both parameters (build_id and title_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or format details for these parameters, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific resource and scope: 'State of one version of the Title's game', and enumerates what is returned (status, errors, test and live links). It distinguishes itself from list_builds by focusing on a single version, but does not explicitly name list_builds or other alternatives to contrast with.

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 a clear usage context: 'Use it to poll finish_build_upload', which tells the agent exactly when this tool is appropriate. However, it provides no when-not guidance or explicit alternatives (e.g., use list_builds to enumerate builds).

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