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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it returns the output URL for completed renders, reports the attach outcome once known, and provides typical render time. This goes beyond simple schema and annotation information.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core purpose first, then parameter-usage distinctions, then relevant timing and attach behavior. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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 simple status-check tool with a complete input schema and an output schema present, the description covers what an agent needs: how to target jobs, what the response contains, expected timing, and automation behavior. No critical operational detail appears to be missing.

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?

All three parameters are already fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by explaining that job_ids yields one line of status per job and that completed renders include an output URL, which clarifies the expected behavior beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Check the status of render jobs' and explicitly names the three tools that start those jobs. It distinguishes itself from render tools and from sibling status-related operations by clarifying it is a status check, not a render trigger.

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 clearly instructs when to pass job_ids versus job_id, and says to check a whole batch in one call. It also advises that when node_id was provided, attach is automatic and there is no need to poll to completion, which tells the agent when this tool is still needed.

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