Poll a Fashio generation job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the polling behavior and the terminal statuses ('completed' or 'failed'), which is the core behavioral trait. It does not describe response format or error semantics, but for a simple status checker this is adequate.

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 carry all needed information: what the tool does and how to use it. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 one-parameter poll endpoint with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: the id origin and the polling loop with terminal conditions. Minor omissions like return value shape or polling interval do not prevent correct invocation.

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 already fully describes the only parameter, 'id', as 'The id returned by create_generation.' The description reinforces this source, but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies due to 100% schema 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?

Description clearly identifies the action ('Checks the status of a job') and links it to a specific resource ('a job started with create_generation'). This makes the tool easily distinguishable from sibling creation and listing tools.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: after calling create_generation, and it gives an explicit polling pattern until terminal status. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is strong.

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