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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds two things annotations cannot: that the call is free and that it must be polled repeatedly until a 'done' flag is true. It omits any statement about jobId lifetime, error states, or rate limits.

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 cost and purpose, with the polling instruction last. Minimal waste, though the one-word 'Free.' fragment is terse enough to read as clipped rather than polished.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description correctly focuses on the async workflow (create, then poll). It stops just short of covering failure handling or how long results remain retrievable.

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 the single jobId parameter, so the description carries some burden; it does usefully imply the value comes from blackwood_image_generate's response. However, it never explicitly identifies jobId as the job handle, nor its format or validity window.

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 ('status and result of a job') and explicitly ties it to the sibling tool that creates that job, blackwood_image_generate. An agent can immediately tell this apart from blackwood_image_generate and the other *_status siblings.

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?

Names the prerequisite call (blackwood_image_generate) and gives explicit usage behavior: 'Poll until done is true.' Clear context for when to call it, though it offers no guidance on polling intervals or what to do on failure.

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