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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent behavior, so the description's extra context about needing the same provider and subscriptionKey and the next import step adds useful behavioral boundary. It accurately reflects a non-destructive polling operation and has no contradiction with the annotations.

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 deliver the polling purpose, the required identity context, and the success-path next step with zero filler. The content is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter, read-only polling tool with a full output schema, the description is complete: it explains what to pass, what to wait for, and what to do after. The agent has all the context needed to call the tool correctly and continue the workflow.

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 the description does not need to re-document the parameters. It reinforces that provider and subscriptionKey should match the originating generation request, but this mostly restates the schema's existing descriptions.

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 opens with a specific action, 'Poll a generation', and ties it directly to the output of asset_generate_3d, so an agent knows exactly what this tool is for. It also distinguishes the tool from the generation and import siblings by framing it as the middle polling step of the workflow.

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 description states the precondition (generation started by asset_generate_3d with the same provider and subscriptionKey) and gives a clear transition condition to asset_library_import when status=done. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the workflow condition is specific enough to select it correctly.

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