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 underlying queue endpoint path and the optional logs flag, which is useful operational context, but it omits whether status is terminal/transient or any rate-limit considerations.

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?

A single compact sentence with the purpose front-loaded, followed by the endpoint detail. No filler, though the raw URL template sits slightly awkwardly beside the prose.

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 usefully enumerates the returned status values (IN_QUEUE | IN_PROGRESS | COMPLETED), so the agent knows what to expect. Only the polling/next-step workflow is left unexplained.

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 the schema already documents model_id, request_id and logs. The description only restates the optional logs=1 flag, adding no syntax or meaning beyond the schema; 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 ('Get the status of a queued request') and enumerates the possible status values. It implicitly separates itself from falai_get_request_result by scoping to status only, but never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

No statement of when to call this versus the sibling falai_get_request_result, nor any polling guidance (e.g. call repeatedly until COMPLETED, then fetch the result). The status enum hints at a polling workflow but the agent must infer it.

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