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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the call waits and returns the result once ready, which is useful, but it doesn't disclose what happens on timeout or when the job is not yet finished.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the polling purpose is front-loaded. It is efficiently stated, though it is arguably terse to the point of underspecification rather than maximally informative.

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 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate. However, with no output schema, the description does not explain what is returned when the job is still pending versus finished, leaving a real gap for a result-fetching tool.

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% (job_id and wait_seconds are both documented in the schema), so the schema carries the parameter burden and baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax or meaning beyond the schema, so it neither compensates nor detracts.

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 conveys a specific action in plain terms: check a pending creation and retrieve its result when done. It is clear enough that an agent understands this is a polling/result-fetch tool, but the resource is described loosely as 'something that is still being made' and it draws no boundary against siblings like list_my_creations or run_model.

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?

Usage is only implied: you call it on work that is 'still being made.' There is no explicit statement of when to poll versus when to use list_my_creations or the creation tools, and no guidance on when not to call it (e.g. after the job has already completed).

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