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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it is a polling-style tool whose returned content differs by state (stage while running, preview URL and install command when done). It does not mention rate limits or caching for repeated polls.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by state-dependent returns. No filler or redundancy.

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 an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return fields, and it succinctly notes the two states the output can take. It omits mention of failure/error states or how long generation typically takes, which would help an agent decide polling cadence.

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 projectId param is fully documented in the schema, including its origin (returned by create-design-system). The description adds nothing further about the parameter, 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+resource (reports progress of a design system) and ties it directly to the sibling that creates it (create-design-system). It clearly distinguishes polling/status checking from creation and from other design-system siblings like find-design-system or preview-design-system.

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?

Explicitly names create-design-system as the origin of the resource, which tells the agent when this tool is applicable. It implies the polling pattern (while generation runs / when finish) but does not state when NOT to use it or what alternative to poll with.

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