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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is the timing/polling behavior and the note that a failure carries a reason — real operational context an agent needs. It stops short of stating ownership/permission constraints (that design_id must belong to the caller) in the description itself, leaving that to the schema.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct load: what it does and returns, when to call it, and how to poll. The purpose is front-loaded and the polling cadence is stated compactly rather than buried.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values — it does so precisely (status, preview image once drawn, failure reason) and adds the timing needed to interpret an incomplete status. Nothing required to invoke or interpret the call is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema description already explains that design_id identifies one of the user's own designs and is not a creative_id. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so 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 how a ThanksAI Studio design is coming along') and immediately enumerates what is returned: status, preview image, failure reason. That distinguishes it cleanly from list-studio-designs (many designs) and from create/refine-studio-design (which produce rather than inspect).

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?

Explicitly says when to use it (poll after create-studio-design or refine-studio-design), gives expected latency (1-3 minutes), a polling cadence (every 15-20 seconds), and the terminal conditions (status 'completed' or 'failed'). Nothing about the call sequence is left to inference.

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