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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety profile is covered. The description adds useful guidance against polling, which is a behavioral trait not in the annotations. It doesn't mention what 'ready' means or what the response looks like.

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 with no waste; the purpose and the usage warning are front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter read-only status check with full schema coverage and annotations, this is adequate but thin. No output schema exists, so the description could say more about what 'ready' means or the shape of the result, which an agent would need to interpret the response.

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% and the single parameter 'name' is fully documented in the schema, including the omit-for-most-recent behavior. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 clearly it checks whether a presenter from make_presenter is ready for video use, naming the verb (check readiness) and resource (presenter). Distinguishes itself from make_presenter by referencing it, though it doesn't differentiate from sibling status-checkers like check_video or check_animation.

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 a temporal cue ('yet') and a behavioral instruction ('call when the user asks, not on a loop'), which implies polling avoidance. However, it doesn't specify which alternative to use when the user asks about other readiness states, and doesn't clarify prerequisites like whether make_presenter must have been called first.

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