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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: this is an asynchronous polling operation and the finished model's CDN URL surfaces in Assets. It omits failure/pending states and retry guidance, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 terse sentences, no waste, and the core action (poll by id) is front-loaded before the result-location detail. 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 correctly compensates by telling the agent where the result lands (the model CDN URL in Assets), which is the key return-value fact. It is nearly complete for a 2-param read-only poller, with only the intermediate/pending status behavior left implicit.

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%; both parameters are documented in the schema, including the optional title_id rationale and the three_d_id origin. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond what the schema already provides, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Poll a 3D job by id") and clearly positions itself as the status-check counterpart to generate_three_d, which is the sibling that creates the job. An agent can distinguish the two 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?

"Poll a 3D job by id" implies the usage context (after a job exists) and the schema ties the id to generate_three_d, but the description never explicitly says when to call this versus generate_three_d or what to do while the job is still pending. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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