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

Annotations only declare this a safe idempotent read; the description goes well beyond by disclosing the state machine (running/completed/failed), expected latency of 60-180 seconds, the required polling loop and its termination condition, and a hard requirement to present post content verbatim. These are the behavioral details an agent actually needs to drive the tool correctly and are consistent with readOnlyHint/idempotentHint.

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?

Well front-loaded: purpose first, then per-status branches, then output formatting, which is the order an agent needs it. There is mild redundancy - 'Never stop polling until status is completed or failed' restates what the running branch already said - but nothing is wasted enough to obscure the instructions.

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 must explain return states itself, and it does: it names the three status values and prescribes what to do with each, plus how to render the returned posts. For a one-parameter polling tool this covers everything needed to invoke and interpret it.

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?

The single parameter has 100% schema description coverage ('The job ID returned from generate_ideas'), and the description only echoes that same provenance rather than adding format, lifetime, or reuse semantics. With the schema fully carrying parameter meaning, the baseline 3 applies.

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 generation job') and explicitly ties the job to the sibling tool that creates it ('started by generate_ideas'), so an agent can place it in the workflow 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?

Gives concrete when-to-use guidance for each branch: poll again after a few seconds while 'running', present posts on 'completed', show the error on 'failed', and never stop before a terminal state. It also sets an expectation (60-180 seconds, don't give up at 30). It does not, however, say anything about how it differs from the generic 'check_job_status' sibling, so an agent facing both tools gets no routing help.

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