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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful trait beyond the annotations: 'single-shot' signals a non-blocking, immediate-return check, in contrast to the wait_for_* siblings. It does not disclose what states can be returned or what happens for an unknown/idle id.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the core function is front-loaded before the parenthetical qualifier. It is efficiently sized for a two-parameter status tool, though the terseness edges toward under-specification rather than true concision.

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 and no annotations describing return values, the description should explain what a status result looks like (pending/succeeded/failed) and how it relates to wait_for_image; it does neither. Given two undocumented parameters and 0% schema coverage, an agent lacks enough information to call this confidently versus the dedicated wait 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for both required parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails it. It never explains that `id` is the generation identifier to check or that `tool` selects among the 13 generation types in the enum, leaving the agent to infer the meaning of a large enum from bare strings.

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 names a verb (status check) and a resource (single-shot generation), which is clearer than a tautology, but it never says which generation type this covers or how it relates to siblings like video_status, audio_status, and clipping_status. The parenthetical '(used by the preview UI)' muddies rather than sharpens the purpose, hinting the tool is UI plumbing rather than an agent-facing query.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The most important routing decision — whether an agent should call this or the sibling wait_for_image (which presumably polls until completion) — is left entirely unaddressed. The 'used by the preview UI' note implies a context of use without stating whether an agent should adopt it.

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