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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral load. 'Check ... by looking for new assets' implies a read/poll operation and the timeout context explains its purpose, but it never states that it is non-mutating, how/when to re-poll, or what the result looks like when nothing has completed.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the core action leads and the usage cue follows immediately.

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 should clarify what is returned, yet 'check if ... has completed' could mean a boolean, a status enum, or a list of new assets — the agent cannot tell. Given three parameters and no annotations, more context is needed.

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 67% and the description adds no parameter meaning: the type enum (HOOK/AVATAR/IMAGE/etc.), limit, and since are all undocumented in prose. 'Looking for new assets' only loosely gestures at the type/since filters without explaining them.

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 action and mechanism: check whether a requested generation has completed by scanning for new assets. It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_assets, which also returns assets.

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 concrete trigger condition — 'Use after generate_video if it times out' — which tells the agent when this tool is relevant. It stops short of naming alternatives or describing what to do if no new assets are found.

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