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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: a job has intermediate stages, and a completed job yields title, cast, play link and a management link that grants private sender access — a security-relevant disclosure. It omits error/not-found behavior and any rate limits.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior, then return contents, then the privilege caveat on management links. No filler and nothing restated from the title.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so for the completed case, which is what an agent needs. The incomplete-job return shape and failure cases are unstated, a minor gap for a single-parameter status 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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema contributes only a type and regex pattern. The description says the key is a private idempotency key that identifies the job, which adds meaning, but it doesn't explain where the key comes from or how it relates to the creation call.

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: returns the current stage of a game generation job, consumed by its private idempotency key. This is clearly distinguishable from creation siblings like make_game and revise_custom_game, which act on the game rather than reporting job status.

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 the usage pattern (poll a job previously submitted, using its idempotency key) but never states when to call it, how often to poll, or what to do instead. No alternatives or exclusions are named, so routing remains inferential.

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