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

Annotations already cover the read-only safety profile, and the description adds useful behavior: the status lifecycle, that result_url carries the finished image when done, and that polling should continue until a terminal state. It omits error handling and rate-limit details, but adds solid context beyond the annotations.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The polling instruction and timing detail are front-loaded after the core purpose, so every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple polling tool, the description covers the essential lifecycle, the key return field, and the expected polling duration. Given the schema and read-only annotation, no meaningful gap remains for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, and the operation_id is already documented as 'returned by lab_vfx'. The description reinforces that origin but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case guidance beyond the schema, 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 the specific verb 'Poll' and resource 'a VFX operation started with lab_vfx', immediately tying it to its sibling lab_vfx. The status values and result_url outcome make the tool's scope unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly says to call repeatedly until done|failed and gives a typical duration under 30 seconds, which tells the agent how to use it. However, it does not name alternative status tools or state when not to use this one.

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