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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by documenting the response contract (status of success/processing/error and an output URL array), which tells the agent how to interpret results. It does not cover failure modes, rate limits, or polling cadence.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then usage, then the exact parameters, then the response shape. Every sentence carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema verbatim without added context.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by enumerating the returned status values and output array. Combined with the annotation and full param coverage, an agent has everything needed to poll and interpret results.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds relational meaning the schema cannot: the id comes from the original generation response, and type must match the category of the original request (e.g. "images" for image-generation). That mapping is genuinely useful for correct invocation.

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 (check status of a queued/processing generation request) and names the API version. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling generation tools, which create requests rather than poll them.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: after image/video/audio/3d-generation returns status "processing" with a numeric id. It also specifies which values to pass, so the polling workflow is fully determined without inference.

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