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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it doesn't say whether this is a point-in-time check or a poll, what states a request can be in, or whether results persist.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing in it is filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should convey what a status check returns — status values, progress, or error states. It says none of this, leaving the agent unable to interpret the response of a status-only tool whose entire purpose is the return value.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented there ('Request ID from sdk_generate'), so the description needn't compensate. It adds no extra meaning about the ID format or lifetime, which is the baseline expectation.

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 and resource ('Check SDK generation request status'), which is clearly distinct from siblings sdk_generate, sdk_download, and sdk_list. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings or draw the contrast, but the action is unambiguous.

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: the schema says the request_id comes 'from sdk_generate', which suggests this is a follow-up call after generation. The description itself gives no when-to-use guidance, no mention of polling or when the request is complete.

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