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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable state-machine semantics: queued/planning/generating/saving are in-progress, ready returns the saved result, failed means credits were returned. This tells the agent how to interpret outcomes, beyond what annotations provide. It doesn't cover polling frequency or timeouts, keeping it from a 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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with zero waste: the action, the status meanings, and the explicit exclusion. Each sentence 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?

No output schema, so the description must explain return semantics, which it does via the status list. Combined with readOnly annotations, an agent knows it's a safe read that returns either progress or a result. It's missing where a jobId comes from and whether polling is needed, which keeps it from complete.

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 0% with a single required parameter jobId, so the schema gives no meaning. The description implies jobId refers to a saved generation (the thing being read), which adds context. However it doesn't specify the format/origin of jobId (where to get it). With only one param, baseline is 4, and this provides some semantic framing.

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 read operation on a saved generation job, and explicitly distinguishes it from starting a generation with 'This does not start another generation.' The 'saved' qualifier and jobId scope separate it from siblings like studio_save or create_post.

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?

Clearly implies usage: use this to poll/check status of an existing generation, and the final sentence explicitly rules out the alternative of starting a new generation. It lacks explicit sibling naming (e.g., 'use request_upload_url first'), but the when/when-not is clear.

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