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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the poll interval (30s) and typical job duration (1-5 minutes), which are genuinely useful behavioral constraints not derivable from the schema. It omits failure semantics (what 'failed' means, retry guidance), but the core timing behavior is well-communicated.

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 the purpose, followed by the return shape and the key timing constraint. Zero wasted words.

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 single-param polling tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, return values (status enum and result_url), and timing behavior. Missing only the failure/retry path and where job_id originates, minor for a tool of this simplicity.

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?

Only one parameter (job_id) with 0% schema description coverage. The description doesn't explain what a job_id is or where it comes from (presumably returned by generate_image/generate_video). Schema coverage is low, but with a single obvious parameter the baseline of 3 is reasonable.

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 distinguishes itself from siblings like generate_image/generate_video by being a polling/status tool rather than a generation tool. An agent can immediately tell this is not a generator.

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 implicit operational context ('Wait at least 30 seconds between polls') that guides invocation, and implies this is used after starting a generation. It does not explicitly name the sibling tool that starts a job, but the polling guidance is clear.

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