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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the zero-cost nature, the exact return payload when complete (signed one-hour PNG links, per-animation GIFs, frames zip, sheet JSON, character), and the long-poll behavior of waitSeconds returning early on change. Missing only auth/rate-limit or error-state details.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the cost signal and purpose, then flows into return values and the polling parameter. The third sentence is a dense run-on enumerating five artifacts, but nothing is wasteful.

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 does the necessary work of enumerating the returned artifacts and explaining link expiry, and it covers waitSeconds semantics. An agent can call it correctly and interpret the response; only the provenance/meaning of runId and error states remain unstated.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains waitSeconds well, including the early-return semantics that the raw min/max/default does not convey. It does not explain what runId is or where it comes from (implied only by "sprite sheet order"), leaving half the parameters unelaborated.

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 clearly identifies the resource and the query: "Progress of a sprite sheet order." This distinguishes it from generate_sprite_sheet (creation) and get_files (file retrieval) by focusing on order-status polling. However, it never explicitly contrasts with the generic sibling get_status, so the boundary between the two is left for the agent to infer.

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?

The note "No charge" and the waitSeconds explanation imply this is meant for polling and that repeated calls are cheap, which is useful guidance. But there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus get_status, nor any when-not-to-use or prerequisite information (e.g., that a runId must come from generate_sprite_sheet).

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