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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: it is free to call, safe to poll repeatedly, and reserved credits are automatically refunded on failure. It also discloses the auth prerequisite and references a setup URL, which are not captured in any structured field.

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?

Dense but mostly justified — auth, setup link, cost, polling loop, and terminal states are all actionable. Minor deduction because the auth prerequisite and URL are front-loaded ahead of the core purpose, slightly delaying the one-line 'what it does' for a reader skimming.

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 no output schema, the description still tells the agent what to expect back ('completed' with a usable path/url, or 'failed'), how to interpret failure (credits refunded), and how often to re-poll. Nothing needed to invoke and terminate polling correctly 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 renderId parameter is already documented in the schema as coming from generate_alert_character. The description adds the polling cadence but nothing new about the parameter itself, so the baseline of 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 a specific verb and resource ("Read-only poll for a character generation") and names the originating tool generate_alert_character, which cleanly separates it from the many other status siblings (get_render_status, get_pack_status, get_style_sheet_character_edit_status). An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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 explicit operational guidance: call every few seconds, stop at 'completed' or 'failed', and pair with generate_alert_character. It also states the prerequisite (approved AlertForge account connection) and the OAuth path, so the agent knows both when to use it and what must happen first.

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