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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the status lifecycle (ideas, planned, rendering, ready, failed) and implying a polling pattern, which tells the agent results may be incomplete while rendering. It doesn't say what happens for an unknown id or whether a failed carousel still returns slide data.

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?

One compact sentence plus a short imperative: the resource and its returned fields come first, then the polling instruction. No filler, and the status enum values are inlined rather than deferred. Slightly telegraphic phrasing, but nothing is wasted.

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 correctly compensates by listing the returned fields and the possible status values. Combined with the annotations and the fully documented single parameter, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly. Only edge behavior (invalid id, partial results during rendering) is left unstated.

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 the single id parameter is already documented as 'Carousel id from make_carousel'. The description's 'after make_carousel' reinforces the provenance of the id but adds no format, length, or validation detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 names the resource (a carousel) and enumerates exactly what it exposes: status with its five lifecycle values, slide plan, caption, hashtags and renderedMediaIds. That makes the retrieval intent unambiguous and separates it from the sibling make_carousel. It never states the verb 'retrieve by id' outright, but the enumerated return fields make the purpose clear.

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?

'Poll this after make_carousel' gives an explicit trigger condition and a named sibling to pair with, which is the main usage decision an agent faces here. There are no explicit exclusions (e.g., when to use get_post instead for non-carousel content), which keeps it short of a 5.

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