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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add behavior beyond that. It discloses the polling loop and terminal states, which is useful, but omits what happens on timeout, how maxAttempts/intervalSeconds bound the wait, or what is returned when the job never completes.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the purpose clause leads and the enumeration of applicable creator tools carries real routing information rather than padding.

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 blocking poll tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and applicability but leaves the polling controls and the return-on-timeout/return-value behavior undocumented. Adequate for identification, thin for correct invocation.

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%, so the schema documents none of the three parameters and the description must compensate. It never mentions generationId (required), maxAttempts, or intervalSeconds, leaving polling limits and the polling target unexplained beyond suggestive parameter names.

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 (Poll), resource (an image job), and termination semantics (until COMPLETED or FAILED). It also enumerates the creator tools whose jobs it applies to, which separates it from the one-shot image_status sibling without opening either 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?

The trailing list (create_image, create_influencer, create_thumbnail, upscale_image, create_movie_material) makes clear which upstream calls produce the jobs this tool waits on, so when-to-use is well covered. It stops short of naming when *not* to use it (e.g., use image_status for a non-blocking check), so it's clear context without explicit exclusions.

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