get_generation_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does contribute real signal: 'durable state' implies the status survives beyond a single request, and 'warnings' signals partial-failure reporting. It still omits whether the call is read-only (only implied), what happens for an unknown or expired job_id, and whether polling is expected.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the list of returned fields is grouped logically. It is arguably too terse for a tool with no annotations, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 simple one-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, and the enumeration of returned fields partly substitutes for the missing output schema. However, with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, the definition leaves the agent guessing about polling behavior and how it differs from the several sibling status tools.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the single required parameter job_id is never mentioned in the description, so nothing explains its format, provenance, or expected lifetime. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names the returned data precisely (durable state, stage, progress, warnings, artifacts), making it clear this is a status/progress read for a generation job. It does not, however, state the resource explicitly or distinguish itself from siblings like get_batch_status, get_queue_status, or get_generation_artifacts.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no mention of polling, of checking a single job vs a batch/queue, or of when to call get_generation_artifacts instead. An agent must infer the choice from the tool names alone.

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