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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior: it returns output_url or output_text once status is 'completed'. However, it does not disclose what happens before completion, what statuses exist, or whether polling is expected, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the return condition is stated immediately. 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?

For a simple one-parameter status tool with readOnly annotations, the description is nearly complete. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit detail about intermediate states or retry/polling behavior, but the description gives enough for an agent to call and interpret the result correctly in the common case.

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 100%, so the schema already documents generation_id. The description adds marginal value by noting that generation_id comes from the asynchronous tool that started the generation, but it does not need to compensate for any undocumented parameters.

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 verb ('Check the status'), a clear resource ('a generation started by any asynchronous RegiAI tool'), and the key output condition. This is unambiguously distinct from the sibling generation tools, which start work rather than retrieve results.

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 clearly implies when to use it: after an asynchronous RegiAI tool has been started, passing the returned generation_id. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternatives, but none are needed because this is the designated polling/status tool among the listed siblings.

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