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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'COMPLETED-only' precondition and the underlying HTTP endpoint, which is useful for advanced/debugging use, but says nothing about error behavior for pending/failed requests or whether the call is retried.

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, zero filler, and the key scoping constraint ('COMPLETED') is front-loaded ahead of the endpoint reference. Nothing is redundant.

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 carries the burden of explaining what 'final output' contains (e.g. generated media vs. JSON payload), and it does not. Parameters and safety are adequately covered, but return-value ambiguity leaves a real gap for an agent consuming the result.

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%, so both model_id and request_id are already documented in the schema. The description's endpoint template confirms how those two values are placed but adds no new syntax or format meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('final output of a COMPLETED queued request'), and the 'COMPLETED' qualifier implicitly separates it from falai_get_request_status. An agent can tell what this 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?

The 'COMPLETED' constraint provides clear context that this should only be called after a request has finished, implying the status-then-result sequencing. It does not explicitly name falai_get_request_status as a prerequisite or state when-not to use it, so it falls short of full explicit routing.

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