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

Adds behavior beyond annotations: the 'comparing' state blocks briefly while the comparison renders, and each terminal state carries specific payload implications (comparison image, template id plus PR link, failure reason). Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/closed-world, so this extra latency and per-state detail is real added value.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the status enumeration, with no filler. It is slightly run-on across the parenthetical state explanations, but every clause carries 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?

Complete for a simple read-only status check: output schema covers return fields, annotations cover safety, and the description supplies prerequisite, latency caveat, and state semantics. Nothing an agent needs is missing.

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 is documented, so the baseline is 3; the description adds provenance the schema lacks by naming propose_template as the origin of the tracking code, which materially helps an agent supply the right value.

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 ('Return the status of a gallery template proposal') and ties the input to the sibling tool that produces it (propose_template). The enumerated status values further distinguish it from sibling tools like get_template or get_recreation_brief.

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?

Clearly implies the usage context: call it with the tracking code returned by propose_template, and it explains how to interpret each possible status. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives for other template queries, but the prerequisite is unambiguous.

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