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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it discloses that on success the tool returns presigned output image URLs valid for 1 hour, and that an API key is required. This gives useful context about the response format and authorization.

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 description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every word adds value. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name or title.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain every return field. It covers the key behavioral nuance (URL expiry), the auth requirement, and the core polling action. It could mention failure states or polling cadence, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a read-only status tool.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description mentions an API key requirement, reinforcing the api_key parameter, but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Poll a generation job') and describes the key successful outcome ('returns presigned output image URLs'). It is unambiguous about the resource being polled, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_preview_status tool.

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 usage after creating a job ('Poll a generation job') and notes the API key requirement. However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_preview_status, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond API key.

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