Get Listing Copy Generation Status

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that polling is free and does not consume another AI Copywriter prompt, which is critical behavioral context. It also explains the three distinct response shapes and their meanings, making the tool's runtime behavior transparent.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the purpose and polling loop, the response shapes, and the cost-saving guidance. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no fluff.

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 fully compensates by detailing all three status shapes and the fields carried in the result. The required parameters are clearly tied to the generation workflow. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret this tool correctly is missing.

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%, with both nicheId and generationId already explained in the schema. The description reinforces that generationId comes from generate_listing_copy but does not add substantial new parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific action ('poll') against a specific resource ('listing-copy draft') and clearly distinguishes it from generate_listing_copy. It also enumerates the possible statuses, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('to poll a listing-copy draft started with generate_listing_copy'), when to poll again ('generating' status), and when not to re-call the sibling ('always poll rather than re-calling generate_listing_copy'). This is model behavior for usage guidance.

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