check_aeo_content_suite_status

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: polling nature, timing interval (15-30s), continuation until terminal states (completed/failed), and authentication requirement (same X-API-Key as generate). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, error handling, or what 'completed' or 'failed' entail. Good but not exhaustive.

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 sentences, zero waste. First sentence states purpose and polling cadence. Second sentence adds auth detail. Front-loaded with essential info (polling, timing, termination). Every sentence earns its place by providing critical usage context.

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?

No output schema, so description should ideally cover return values, but it doesn't. However, given the tool's simplicity (1 param, no annotations), the description is largely complete: purpose, usage, auth, and parameter context are clear. Minor gap in not explaining status outcomes (what 'completed' or 'failed' mean), but overall sufficient for agent use.

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% (orderId documented), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining orderId's origin ('returned from generate_aeo_content_suite'), providing context beyond schema. It doesn't detail format or constraints, but the linkage to generate is helpful. Scores above baseline for meaningful addition.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Poll Content Suite generation' - a specific verb (poll) and resource (Content Suite generation). It distinguishes from siblings by referencing generate_aeo_content_suite and contrasting with download_aeo_content_suite_zip (polling vs. downloading). The description goes beyond the name/title to explain what polling entails.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use: 'After generate_aeo_content_suite returns (HTTP 202), call every 15–30s until status is completed or failed.' Clear timing, prerequisites, and termination conditions. It distinguishes from check_aeo_audit_status by focusing on Content Suite rather than audit, and from download_aeo_content_suite_zip by specifying polling precedes downloading.

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