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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new context: the call is free, it returns a result as well as status, and the termination condition is the 'done' flag. It does not mention polling cadence or rate limits, which would be the remaining useful detail.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the cost note and the resource identity, then the polling instruction. Nothing is padded and nothing important is buried.

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?

Output schema exists, so the return payload (including the 'done' flag referenced) need not be re-explained. Cost, prerequisite tool, and polling behavior are all covered; the definition gives an agent everything needed to call this 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% and there is one parameter, but the description hints at the provenance of jobId ('a job created by image-gen_v1'), which is more than the bare schema says. It still doesn't state the id format, lifetime, or what happens with an unknown/expired id.

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 names the specific resource (status and result of a job) and ties it explicitly to the sibling tool that creates the job, image-gen_v1. An agent can immediately tell it apart from image-gen_v1 itself and from unrelated status siblings like llm-chat_v1_status.

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?

It states the calling pattern clearly ('Poll until done is true'), which tells the agent this is a follow-up call to a previously submitted job rather than an entry point. It stops short of explicitly naming when not to call it (e.g., that it only works on jobIds from image-gen_v1, not other tools' jobs).

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