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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world safety, so the bar is lower; the description adds genuinely new context by noting it costs no quota because the track is already paid for. It does not describe what happens if the track is still pending when the wait elapses, so it falls just short of full behavioral disclosure.

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 triggering condition stated first and the anti-pattern warning 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 values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, the undefined wait_seconds behavior and the unstated outcome when the wait expires leave a real gap for a long-polling tool.

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 only 50%: track_id is documented in the schema, but wait_seconds has no description in either place. The description never mentions wait_seconds, its default of 120, or the 600 upper bound, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap on a parameter whose semantics (blocking duration/timeout) matter to correct invocation.

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 a specific action (keep waiting on a generation) and the exact triggering state (a generation tool returned status: pending). It also explicitly disambiguates from the sibling generation tools by warning against starting a second generation for the same brief.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('Call this when a generation tool came back with status: pending') and an explicit when-not ('Never start a second generation for the same brief instead of calling this'), the latter directly naming the alternative behavior an agent might otherwise choose.

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