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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's main contribution is the 'Free to call' note and the semantic meaning of the ready flag (whole comic live at reader_url). This adds useful behavioral context beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The description is a single, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the purpose, then details the metrics and the ready flag, with no wasted words or redundancy.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (panels, motion clips, voice lines counts, ready flag) and the significance of ready=true. Combined with strong annotations, this is a complete picture for an agent.

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%, with the parameter comic_id described as 'Comic id returned by create_comic'. The description reuses this context but adds no new parameter-specific details, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 clearly states the tool's function: checking asset-production progress for a comic. It specifies the resource (comic created with create_comic) and the exact metrics (panels, motion clips, voice lines done vs total, ready flag), distinguishing it from sibling tools like audition_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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool—after creating a comic with create_comic—and adds the 'Free to call' guideline. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is sufficient for a status-checking tool.

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