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

Annotations are thin and somewhat noisy (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false on what reads as a status probe), so the description carries real weight: it enumerates the three terminal states (still generating, completed with the model, failed) and discloses that an inline preview already calls it. It does not explain polling cadence, retry behavior, or how long a job typically takes, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the return states, then the calling context. No filler or restatement of the 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 detail return fields, and it still usefully summarizes the outcome states plus the prerequisite create_3d_model call. The only gap is not telling the agent which of the two identifiers to pass or what to do on a "still generating" result.

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% and both parameters already state they come "from create_3d_model," so the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that. It also does not clarify that artifactId is the required identifier while jobId is optional, leaving the schema to do all the work.

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 ("Check the status of a 3D model") and explicitly ties it to the create_3d_model job it monitors. An agent can distinguish this polling tool from create_3d_model and from other status tools like video_status without opening any 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?

Gives a clear trigger ("you can also call it if the user asks whether their model is ready") and notes that the inline preview invokes it automatically, which implies the agent usually does not need to poll. It does not name the sibling alternative for other media types or state an explicit when-not, so it falls 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.