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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds workflow context (which run it applies to and what to do when complete), but does not describe behavioral details such as polling semantics or error on unknown run_id; with annotations, this is adequate.

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, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and immediately followed by the workflow note. No filler or repetition of schema or annotation details.

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 one-parameter status checker with a readOnly/idempotent annotation and an output schema, the description covers what the run is, where the ID comes from, and what to do after completion. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 0% for the single run_id parameter, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that the run is one started by generate_3d_model or found in user history, giving semantic meaning to run_id beyond its UUID type. It does not explicitly spell out that run_id is required, but the schema marks it required.

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 identifies the resource ('a run'), the process that creates it ('generate_3d_model'), and the title supplies the verb ('Check'). It is distinct from list_generations, which lists runs, and from save_generation_as_project, which persists a completed run, so an agent can route to it correctly.

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 a clear context for use: status of a run from generate_3d_model or user history, and it tells the agent the follow-up action once completed ('save it with save_generation_as_project'). It does not explicitly name alternatives like list_generations for finding history runs, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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