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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: a blocking wait of up to 55 seconds and a 24-hour expiry on result links, both of which affect how an agent should sequence calls.

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, zero filler, with the primary product of the call front-loaded and the practical caveat (link expiry) last. 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, yet the description still names the three key returns. For a two-parameter status-check tool with full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description clarifies the intent of wait_s (block until finished rather than a bare sleep) but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema's '0-55' range.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Get the status, result links and charged amount of a job' — and even enumerates the return payload, so an agent can distinguish it from cancel_job or generate immediately.

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 supplies conditional guidance for wait_s ('set wait_s to wait for the job to finish') and a re-call rule for expired links, but it never states the core trigger (call this after generate) or any exclusion versus siblings like cancel_job. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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