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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds real value by disclosing polling behavior, the side effect (publishes a new HTML doc in the user's farm), the idempotency guarantee, and the returned payload. It doesn't explain how a failed/invalid rebuild_id is handled, nor reconcile the 'safe to call repeatedly' claim with the destructive hint, so 4 rather than 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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, then polling behavior, then completion effects, then idempotency. No filler or repetition of the schema.

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 compensates by naming the return values (current stage while building; share link and quality scores once done). Combined with the polling and idempotency notes, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the call.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents `name`, `account`, and `rebuild_id`. The description only hints at where rebuild_id originates (`rebuild_doc`) and adds nothing on the other two parameters, so the 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 a specific verb (check a rebuild, publish when done) and ties the resource back to its creator tool (`rebuild_doc`), so an agent can separate it from the sibling that starts rebuilds. The two-phase nature (poll then publish) is explicit.

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 says to call this after `rebuild_doc` and to re-call after a pause while the build is still running, which is exactly the context an agent needs. No alternatives are named (e.g. `get_doc_status`), but for this specific workflow the guidance is sufficient.

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