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

With readOnlyHint already covering safety, the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: the queued|processing|done|failed state machine, that result links are signed https URLs that load without login and expire after 24h, and that re-polling is the refresh path. It also explains why video_url may be null for the alpha_png_sequence profile, which is non-obvious behavior.

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 purpose and polling contract before the dense field-name caveat, and nearly every sentence carries operational value. It is long and packs several distinct topics (polling, URL fields, expiry, market checklist) into one block, which costs some scannability.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of describing return values, and it does: status values, which address fields are populated per profile, link expiry, and the zielmarkt_checkliste payload. Nothing needed to call or interpret the result 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter's description already says it comes from lab_start_export, so the description's mention of the same origin adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Poll an export render job by job_id') and explicitly disambiguates from the sibling lab_get_generation, so an agent can select it 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?

Gives the origin of the id ('from lab_start_export'), the loop contract ('Call repeatedly until done|failed'), and the explicit sibling it is not ('different from lab_get_generation'). Usage is fully determined.

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