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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: a 180 s self-abandonment window, what fields come back while running, what comes back on failure, and the cost ("Free"). It also advises forwarding the generator's failure reason rather than blind retrying, which is genuine operational guidance.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the running-state behavior, then the failure case, then the anti-pattern warning. Nearly every clause earns its place; the one-word "Free." is terse but conveys cost information, though the phrasing is slightly chatty.

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 must convey return values, and it does: percentage complete, elapsed time, remaining time before the 180 s cutoff, and the failure reason. For a single-parameter status poll, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 required parameter, job_id, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It never says what a job_id is or where the agent obtains one (presumably from generate_gcode), leaving the only input under-specified.

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 ("Check a generation job") and immediately scopes what a result contains. It is clearly distinguishable from generate_gcode, which it explicitly names as the wrong alternative for waiting.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use (waiting on a job) and an explicit when-not (calling generate_gcode again), framed as "the ONLY correct way to wait." The agent needs no inference to choose this tool over its sibling.

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