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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the possible terminal states (pending|done|failed), the result_url returned on completion, and the polling latency/duration expectations. Missing only error/retry behavior on a failed job.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return values, then the polling constraint. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is padded.

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 correctly compensates by enumerating return values (status states plus result_url). For a single-param polling tool this is nearly complete; the only unresolved piece is the provenance of job_id and how to handle a 'failed' job.

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 job_id is the sole parameter, yet the description never explains where job_id comes from (presumably the generate_image/generate_video response). The context makes this inferable, but the definition does not add the meaning the schema lacks.

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 and resource ('check the status of a generation job') and immediately scopes it as a polling/status-check operation, which clearly separates it from the generate_image, generate_video, and list_models siblings. An agent can identify the right tool without opening any schema.

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?

Gives concrete usage guidance for polling cadence ('wait at least 30 seconds between polls') and expected duration ('1-5 minutes typically'), which is exactly what an agent needs to avoid hammering the endpoint. It does not, however, state when not to use it or what alternative exists for retrieving results outside this job flow.

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