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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read. The description adds the queue-endpoint context and the optional logs flag, but says nothing about polling cadence, error/404 behavior for unknown request ids, or how long a request remains queryable.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by the endpoint and status values. The embedded URL is useful reference material rather than filler, though it borders on redundant with the server name.

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?

For a simple read-only polling tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and when it applies. It lacks return-shape and error-case detail, but nothing essential to correct invocation 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%, so baseline is 3. The description does echo the logs=1 query syntax, which slightly reinforces the schema's description of that flag, but adds no meaning beyond what the schema already documents for model_id and request_id.

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 (get status of a queued request), enumerates the possible status values (IN_QUEUE | IN_PROGRESS | COMPLETED), and gives the concrete endpoint. This makes it clearly distinguishable from sibling falai_get_request_result, which fetches output rather than status.

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 phrase 'of a queued request' implies this is for polling a request submitted via falai_submit_request, but no explicit when-to-use vs falai_get_request_result or falai_cancel_request guidance is given. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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