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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, it discloses display behavior for include_image across ChatGPT and other MCP clients, a polling rate limit, and a replay prohibition for needs_review results. These are meaningful operational details that an agent would not get from the annotations alone.

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 four tight sentences, front-loaded with the read-only scope and then the important operational constraints. Every sentence adds distinct value with no repetition.

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 annotations covering safety, an output schema covering return values, and the description covering guest-session scope, image display behavior, polling limits, and replay restrictions, the definition gives the agent enough to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains the include_image behavior well, but request_id is only indirectly described as an existing request belonging to the guest session, without stating where the caller obtains it or how it maps to prior create/prepare calls.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it reads an existing request tied to the authenticated guest session. It also distinguishes the operation from creation/retry and makes clear it returns a completed image when requested.

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 gives clear usage constraints: do not use it to create or retry a generation, poll no more than once every five seconds, and do not replay a needs_review result. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as get_trifit_try_on, but the guest-session scope provides useful routing context.

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