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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description goes well beyond it by enumerating the status lifecycle (queued|proxy|spur|render|done|failed) and explaining that progress counts frames done. It also discloses which fields only materialize in the done state. It stops short of saying how often to poll or what a failed job returns, which would be useful for a polling tool.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the state-to-field mapping, with no filler. It is slightly dense with domain jargon (spur.objekte, karte_ansehen, ausnahmen) that requires prior familiarity, but 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?

With no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting for return values by naming result_url, kontakt_url, and spur.objekte and their meaning. It is nearly complete for a one-parameter poll, though it leaves the queued/failed payloads and any polling cadence unstated.

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 a single parameter with 100% schema coverage, and the schema already states it is the job_id returned by lab_vfx_preset. The description adds no format, validation, or lifecycle detail for job_id beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Poll a video VFX preset job." It is clear this is a status/read tool for a job created by lab_vfx_preset, and the mention of lab_vfx_preset(rerender_from, ausnahmen) ties it to the right family. However, it never disambiguates from the very similar sibling lab_vfx_status, which an agent must distinguish on name alone.

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?

Usage is strongly implied by "Poll" plus the schema note that job_id comes from lab_vfx_preset, and the description gives concrete downstream routing: hand result_url to the person as karte_ansehen, and use spur.objekte ids as exceptions in a rerender call. What's missing is an explicit when-not clause or a pointer to lab_vfx_status as the alternative for non-preset VFX jobs.

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