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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful safety context ('polling never costs anything') and explains the two terminal states of a job ('artwork_url' vs. 'error'). It does not detail rate limits or integration requirements, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

The description is extremely compact and front-loaded: the core action is stated first, followed only by two high-value clarifications (free polling and outcome fields). 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 status-check tool with an output schema, the description provides enough operational context: it is a safe pollable read, and the key success/failure fields are named. It does not explicitly describe the full workflow or explain dpop_token, but those gaps are minor given the schema and output schema.

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 67%, and job_id and npub already have meaningful schema descriptions. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, and dpop_token remains undocumented. The npub 'Required' wording conflicts slightly with the schema's required list, which the description does not clarify.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Check a Roastify artwork job') and clarifies it is a status/polling operation. The mention of finished vs. failed outcomes further distinguishes it from generation or other roasting tools.

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?

The description clearly implies this is for checking the status of an artwork generation job and explicitly says polling is free, so it can be safely repeated. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state 'use after roastify_generate_artwork', but the schema's job_id description fills that gap.

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