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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only, free'. Beyond that it adds real operational context: failed worlds are refunded, wait_s blocks inside the call up to 15s, and a completed world exposes a studio link. These are traits an agent could not derive from structured fields.

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 the status meaning, then the outcome-specific guidance, then the wait behavior — every sentence carries signal. Slightly terse phrasing ('the link to walk it and save angles') costs a bit of clarity but no padding is present.

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 necessary work by naming the status states, the studio link, the refund behavior, and the wait result. A few returned fields (e.g. error payloads or project metadata) are unaddressed, but an agent has enough to call and interpret the response 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%, so all three parameters including the wait_s maximum and the gewartet_s response field are already documented. The description restates the wait_s ceiling ('up to 15') and its blocking behavior but adds no syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so 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 ('Status of a world') and enumerates the possible outcomes (processing | completed | failed). The mention of welt_id being returned by lab_welt implicitly separates this polling tool from the creation tool, so an agent can tell them apart without opening the 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?

Clearly signals when to use it: poll for a world's status, pass wait_s to block for up to 15s instead of re-calling, and follow the studio link once completed. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool to use instead, so it stops short of a 5.

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