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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the high-level behavior but does not disclose what happens before completion, whether the tool is safe to poll repeatedly, or what response states to expect. For a status-checking tool, this is a meaningful gap.

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 sentence that conveys both the purpose and the resource, with no filler. The key action and expected output are front-loaded and clearly stated.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description need not be lengthy. However, it omits the behavior when the generation is not yet finished and does not describe the return shape beyond mentioning the URL, leaving a moderate gap in what an agent needs to handle response states.

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 schema already explains that generation_id is 'Id returned by generate or animate.' The description adds no further parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 a specific action ('check whether finished') and result ('get its image or video URL') on a specific resource ('PromptFrenzy generation'). It clearly differentiates this from sibling tools like generate, animate, and get_prompt.

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 makes the polling use case clear: call this after a generation has been started, using the id from generate or animate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to know when it applies.

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