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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it separatedly enumerates the pending/done/failed return payloads, states the tool "never starts or repeats a generation," and specifies a polling interval. This also reconciles the unusually readOnlyHint=false annotation by making clear no new generation is triggered, matching idempotentHint=true.

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?

One dense paragraph with no filler; every clause carries information (states, return fields, cadence, trigger). It is slightly back-loaded, since the 'use this when' trigger sits after the return-shape and polling details rather than at the front.

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 full burden of describing return values and does so for all three terminal states, including viewer_url/glb_url/embed_html when done and the failure reason path. Nothing needed to call or interpret it 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%, so both `job_id` and `refine` are already documented in the schema. The description only restates that job_id comes from a generation tool with status 'pending' and never mentions the `refine` pass-through, so it adds little beyond the structured fields — baseline 3.

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 resource and operation: the status of a 3D generation job, plus what it returns in each of the three states. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling `check_job`, whose name implies an almost identical capability, leaving the agent to guess which one to call.

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 an explicit trigger ("Use this when a generation tool returned status 'pending' and you need its current status or the finished model") and even a polling cadence (wait eta_seconds, or 15s if none). It never names an alternative or exclusion, notably the sibling `check_job`, so the routing decision remains ambiguous.

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