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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it says the tool is free, builds take 15 to 25 minutes, wait calls hold open, running is non-terminal and contains no page, HTML is summarised by default to avoid flooding, and elapsed_seconds is server-measured from the build start. These details help the agent set correct expectations and avoid misusing the return payload.

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 front-loaded with purpose and then proceeds through usage, return behavior, and parameter guidance in a logical order. It is longer than strictly necessary, but each sentence carries practical information for polling and interpreting the result.

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 supplies the missing return-value context: status stages, non-terminal running state, default summarised HTML, full HTML via include_html, and elapsed_seconds. Combined with annotations covering safety, it is complete enough for an agent to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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?

It adds meaningful semantics for wait (holding open, returning on stage change) and include_html (when the user actually wants the file), beyond the schema descriptions. build_run_id is not described in the text, though its purpose is clear from the name and required status.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns the status of a build and the completed page. This cleanly distinguishes the check/poll tool from its sibling build_page, which starts a build, without requiring the agent to open either 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 clear polling guidance: wait set to 300, hold open until the stage moves or the page is ready, and call again on an unchanged stage. It also explains when to set include_html. However, it does not name explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions.

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