Get generation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: outputUrl is a short-lived signed download link, which tells the agent the link expires and must be used promptly. That is real value beyond the annotations.

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 very short sentences with no filler, and the key constraint (short-lived signed link) is placed in the single condition sentence. Slightly under-specified rather than bloated.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries some return-value burden. It hints at a status field and an outputUrl but doesn't enumerate status values or explain what to do while still processing, leaving a moderate gap for a polling-style tool.

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?

One required parameter (generationId) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it — it only references outputUrl, a response field, not the parameter. The parameter is fairly self-explanatory by name, so this is adequate but not compensating 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Fetch status'), and paired with the tool name the agent understands it retrieves the status of a generation. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like wait_generation or list_generations, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. The description never mentions wait_generation (which presumably polls until completion) or any other alternative, leaving the agent to infer when a single status check is the right call.

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