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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing that running jobs show as pending rather than being dropped, and that each result is downloadable. This gives behavioral context the annotations don't provide.

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 paragraphs, front-loading the purpose and then adding usage context. The second paragraph is slightly verbose but each sentence earns its place by explaining when to use the tool and how it behaves with pending jobs. No irrelevant details.

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 single-parameter read-only display tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the when-to-use condition, and behavioral details about pending items. It gives an agent enough to decide when and how to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining the 'job_ids' parameter: 'Pass every job id from the batch; ones still running show as pending.' This directly clarifies the parameter's meaning and behavior, which the bare schema does not.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Display SEVERAL finished generations together as one grid, each downloadable.' It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling arsaze_show_generated_asset by emphasizing multiple results in a grid, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'whenever a single request produced more than one result — a batch image generation returns one job id per image.' It explains why (separate cards flood the conversation) and gives context about passing all job ids. It doesn't name the alternative for single results, but the condition is clear.

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