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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and non-openWorld, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description does not need to repeat it. What is missing is polling semantics: whether the job terminates, whether repeats are expected, or what the progress states look like. The description adds routing context but little behavioral depth beyond annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, no redundancy, with the purpose stated first and the sibling routing second. Every clause carries information.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the tool is a simple one-parameter read. The definition covers purpose, routing and provenance of the jobId, leaving only the polling lifecycle unexplained.

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 jobId parameter is documented as "The jobId create_designs returned." The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable at full coverage but earns only the baseline.

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?

"How far a design job has got" names the resource (a design job) and its progress dimension, and explicitly contrasts it with get_design_status. The phrasing is colloquial rather than verb-first, but an agent can tell what it returns without opening the schema.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use rule (the designs card calls this while it is open) and names the alternative condition (a chat calls get_design_status instead). Both the positive case and the exclusion are stated rather than inferred.

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