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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that — the operation is free, a failed world has already been refunded, and completed worlds expose a `studio` link for saving angles. It stops short of describing the response shape or polling/rate guidance.

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?

Four short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler; every clause carries information. 'Read-only, free' is slightly redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation, but 'free' and the refund note add value.

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 carries the burden of explaining returns and does so reasonably — state values, the studio link, and the refund-on-failure outcome. Minor gaps remain around exact response fields beyond gewartet_s.

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%, so the schema already documents welt_id, project_id, and wait_s including its 15s cap and the gewartet_s response field. The description's mention of wait_s largely restates the schema, 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?

States a specific verb+resource — the status of a world produced by lab_welt — and names the sibling that creates it, so an agent can distinguish polling from generation without opening a schema. It also enumerates the possible states (processing | completed | failed).

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?

The description implies the workflow (call after lab_welt to poll a world) and explicitly tells the agent how to block via wait_s. It does not, however, differentiate this from the other status-polling siblings such as lab_job_status, lab_batch_status, or lab_vfx_status, leaving the selection to inference.

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