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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description's job is to add state behavior. It does deliver something useful: output is conditional on completion, with file links and final cost only available once the task finishes. It does not cover what a pending/failed response looks like, error behavior for a bad task_id, or result expiry, so the disclosure is partial.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded, nothing redundant. It is slightly telegraphic — the second sentence lacks a subject and reads as a note rather than a specification — but there is no wasted wording.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter read tool, but with no output schema the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it only summarizes them ('file links', 'final cost in USD') without indicating the full response shape or the non-completed states. Adequate for a trivial lookup, thin for the tool's actual return complexity.

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?

The single parameter task_id has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it, its origin (returned by the generation tools), or its format. The name is fairly self-explanatory and maxLength is enforced by the schema, but the description adds no meaning beyond it.

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 precisely: the status of an image or video task, plus what arrives on completion. That distinguishes it from the generation siblings (generate_image, generate_video) and from get_balance/list_models without needing to open a schema. It stops short of a full verb+resource statement (no 'Get'/'Retrieve'/'Poll'), so it's clear but phrased as a fragment.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus the siblings, no mention that the task_id comes from generate_image/generate_video, and no polling cadence or lifecycle advice. The only hint is implicit in the word 'Status', which an agent must infer into 'call repeatedly after starting a task'.

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