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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description adds real value by disclosing the account/auth requirement ('requires a free StockCake account, host will prompt to sign in') and the possible outcome states including an error with refund state, which the annotations do not convey.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scoped to the originating tools, with the auth caveat following. No filler; every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, yet the description still summarizes outcome states, and it covers the auth prerequisite. The only minor gap is not stating where job_id originates, though 'job you started' implicitly ties it to the creator tools.

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 75%, and the description adds no syntax or source detail for job_id beyond 'job you started'; context, llm_model, and conversation_id are documented in the schema itself. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not extend it.

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+resource (get job status and result) and names the exact sibling tools whose jobs it tracks (generate_image, upscale_image, resize_image, create_video). An agent can distinguish it from those creators and from get_image/get_account without opening any schema.

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?

Strongly implies the when-to-use ('a ... job you started'), i.e. poll after kicking off one of the named async tools. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name a polling alternative, but there is no competing status tool among the siblings, so context is clear.

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