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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: result_url downloads the edited PNG for one hour and the operation is free, which goes beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the key behavioral detail about result_url expiry and cost. Every sentence 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?

For a simple read-only status tool with two fully described parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: it returns status and, when ready, a time-limited download URL. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly noting that wait_seconds enables long-polling, but the schema already carries that detail.

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 the schema fully documents edit_id and wait_seconds. The description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 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 it returns the status of an edit, which is a specific resource and operation, and is distinguishable from siblings like replace_text or scan_text. However, the verb is implied rather than explicit ('Status of an edit' rather than 'Get the status'), so it falls short of maximal specificity.

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?

The description implies polling for an edit result after creation, especially with the note about result_url being ready, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Usage is inferable but not clearly guided.

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