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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by noting the call is 'free' (contrasted with the paid generate endpoint) and by sketching the return states. It doesn't mention polling cadence or rate limits, so it is not exhaustive.

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 compact sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the action and its cost characteristic before the return shape. 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 compensates by naming the three terminal/running states and the url field on success. That is nearly complete for a simple poller, though pagination/retry semantics are 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% and there is a single jobId parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 ('check a running job') and ties it to its origin ('returned by the paid generate endpoint'), which pins down exactly which resource this operates on. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it falls short of the 5 bar for differentiation.

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?

'Check a running job returned by the paid generate endpoint' clearly places this in the post-generate polling workflow and signals when to invoke it. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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