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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, but the description adds real side-effect disclosure beyond them: checking can save the completed model and restart failed work on another provider. That 'restart on another provider' note is exactly the kind of consequence an agent needs. It still omits auth requirements, cost/rate-limit implications of a restart, and failure states.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the precondition, then proceeds to usage, side effects, and outcome without padding. The closing sentence about the interactive 3D viewer is slightly tangential but earns its place since there is no output 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 carries the return-value burden and does so reasonably: interim calls yield updated timing, the terminal call yields a model rendered inline. Polling cadence and side effects are covered. What remains thin is a clear statement of terminal failure behavior and whether a restart consumes additional credits.

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 job_id parameter already documents itself, including the jobId alias. The description only adds provenance ('from the pending result'), which is mildly useful but not meaningfully beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific action (check on a job / collect the finished model) and the exact precondition that selects it ('a 3D generation that returned status "pending"'). That precondition cleanly distinguishes it from creation-oriented siblings such as mesh_forge, forge_avatar, and text_to_avatar, which start new work rather than poll it.

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?

It gives clear operating context: pass the job_id from the pending result, and call again after the suggested wait while still rendering. It does not state any when-not-to-use condition or name a sibling to prefer, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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