get_generation_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety needs no restating. The description adds genuinely new behavior: it blocks actively up to the wait budget and returns a `final` flag, which is the key runtime trait an agent needs. It could have mentioned that a non-terminal timeout still returns the current state, but the core trait is disclosed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and states, then the critical non-obvious behavior (active waiting). No filler and no repetition of schema or annotation content.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be detailed, and the description still highlights the `final` field and state enumeration. Complete enough to call correctly; minor gap on what happens when the wait budget expires without reaching a terminal state.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description nevertheless adds meaning by explaining the semantics of wait_seconds (blocking until terminal or exhausting the wait) and the resulting `final` field, which the schema alone does not convey. poll_interval_seconds and notebook_id are left to the schema, which is acceptable at full coverage.

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 ('Estado de una generación') and anchors it to the tool that creates the task ('iniciada con generate_report'), then enumerates the possible states. An agent immediately knows this is the polling companion to report generation and cannot confuse it with read_report or list_notebooks.

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?

Explicitly explains the two usage modes: wait_seconds > 0 blocks until terminal state so the agent avoids polling loops, while 0 returns immediately. That is clear when-to-use guidance for the main decision. It does not name any sibling alternative (there is none for status), but it also lacks guidance on failure/retry behavior.

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