teneo_book_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does useful work: it discloses the completed-state payload (outputManifest, coverUrl, time-limited download URLs) and a polling cadence. It does not describe non-completed states, failure/error behavior, or how long the job typically takes, so some lifecycle context is missing.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the purpose leads and the polling guidance closes. Every 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must characterize returns, and it does explain what appears on completion. It leaves the pending/failed response shape and retry semantics unspecified, which is a modest gap for a no-output-schema 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the jobId description already ties it back to teneo_generate_book. The description adds no format or sourcing detail for the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Check a book generation job') and is clearly the polling companion to teneo_generate_book. An agent can distinguish it from the generation and evaluation siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit operational guidance ('Poll every ~30-60s'), which is exactly the context needed for a status-checking tool. It does not name alternatives or state when not to call it, but with no competing status sibling that omission is minor.

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