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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds real context on top: the full status lifecycle (queued, running, succeeded, failed, cancelled) and an 'error' field for failed jobs. It does not discuss polling cadence or rate limits, so it is not exhaustive.

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-loads the purpose, then compactly documents the return shape and the follow-up routing. The dense inline return signature is information-rich but slightly hard to scan compared with prose; still, every sentence earns its place.

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 usefully supplies the response shape (job id, status, prompt, variantCount, error, results) and the status enum, which is exactly what an agent needs to interpret results. The remaining gap is the undocumented input parameters.

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% and the description never explains jobId, ideaId, or what response_format does — it only refers obliquely to 'a result id.' With three undocumented parameters, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 the status of a hero image generation job') plus the secondary behavior of listing finished variants. This clearly separates it from idealaunch_generate_hero_image and idealaunch_apply_hero_image, which are named in the text.

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 next-step rule: 'Once succeeded, pass a result id to idealaunch_apply_hero_image,' which routes the agent to the correct sibling. It implies poll-until-complete usage but never states when not to use it or how often to poll, so it stops short of a full 5.

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