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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: the polling cadence, the terminal-state stop condition, and the fact that credits can be refunded and that alternate format files may be included. Since an output schema exists, the return-value enumeration is partly redundant, keeping this at a 4 rather than 5.

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 sentences, both front-loaded: the first says what comes back, the second says how to poll and when to stop. No filler, and the operational instruction is placed where an agent driving the call will read it.

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 a single required param and a full output schema, the remaining agent-facing unknowns are polling behavior and termination, and the description covers both explicitly along with the credits/refund nuance. Nothing needed to call this correctly is left unstated.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description adds a small amount of provenance ('started by generate_3d or generate'), which matches the schema's own wording, so it neither compensates for a gap nor adds much new syntax detail.

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 verb+resource ('Get a job') and immediately ties it to the producing siblings (generate_3d, generate), then enumerates what comes back: status, progress, credits charged/refunded, and result file URLs. That is enough for an agent to distinguish get_job from list_job_files or get_batch without reading 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?

It gives concrete operational guidance — poll every 5–10 seconds while status is pending/processing, and stop when is_terminal is true — which is exactly the when-to-use context an agent needs. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g. list_job_files for just file listing), so it falls short of a 5.

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