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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that result_url appears only on completion, implying non-terminal states exist — but says nothing about failure states, expiry of job IDs, or rate limits while polling.

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, zero filler, with the action front-loaded and the return condition immediately after. Nothing is wasted or 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?

With no output schema, the description carries responsibility for explaining return values, and it only covers one field (result_url) without mentioning status values, error output, or incomplete-state shape. For a simple one-parameter read tool this is adequate but leaves real gaps for an agent handling pending or failed jobs.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains that job_id is the media job ID returned by generate_media. The description adds no further meaning about the identifier's format or lifetime; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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 ('poll') and resource ('status of a media generation job'), which is clearly distinct from the write-oriented sibling generate_media. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly in the description text, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'Poll' implies repeated invocation after a generation request, but the description never says when to call it, how often, or when to stop polling. The linkage to generate_media appears only in the schema's job_id description, not in the tool description itself.

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