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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring the safety profile, the description adds real behavioral context: the full status vocabulary, what progress counts, and the distinct payload fields available only on completion. It goes beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about polling cadence or terminal-state handling beyond listing 'failed'.

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?

The state enumeration and return-value mapping are front-loaded and every clause carries information an agent needs. It is a dense single block mixing English and German field names, which is slightly heavy but not wasteful.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return contract itself, and it does: status values, progress meaning, result_url, kontakt_url, and spur.objekte face ids. Enough is specified for an agent to poll correctly and act on the terminal state without further documentation.

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 and schema description coverage is 100% – the schema already states job_id is returned by lab_vfx_preset. The description adds no new naming, format, or example value beyond that, so the 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 a VFX preset job) and enumerates the job state machine, which makes it distinguishable from generic pollers. It does not explicitly name siblings like lab_vfx_status or lab_job_status, so an agent must infer the split from the parameter 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?

Gives clear operative guidance: poll this to track a submitted preset job, and when status is done, hand result_url to the user as karte_ansehen, use kontakt_url for review, and feed spur.objekte ids back into lab_vfx_preset(rerender_from, ausnahmen). It never says when to use this instead of the other status tools, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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