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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds the non-obvious behavioral fact that this is a polling tool with a recommended ~10s interval. It stops short of saying what a finished task returns or whether tasks expire, which keeps it below a 5.

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, zero filler, with the purpose front-loaded and the actionable instruction second. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what comes back, and it only implies 'status' without naming the possible states or how to recognize a completed run and retrieve its result. It also omits whether polling should stop or what happens on an unknown/expired task_id.

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% and the schema only types task_id as a string, so the description carries the burden — and it does, telling the agent the value is 'the task_id it gave you', i.e. the identifier from the earlier tool response. That is meaningful provenance beyond the schema, though no format or validation detail is added.

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?

Names the specific resource ('Status of an AI run') and the precise condition that makes the call necessary ('still working when its tool returned'), which distinguishes it from the sibling generation tools. It is not quite a crisp verb+resource statement, but an agent can immediately tell what it is for.

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 an explicit trigger ('still working when its tool returned') and an operational instruction ('wait about 10 seconds between checks'). No alternatives are named, but among the listed siblings none compete with a status-poll, so the guidance is effectively complete.

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