Collect a finished result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely useful behavior: this is a polling call, it returns progress in-flight and full content in markdown when complete, and results are persisted to the user's Andru account. It does not describe timeout, error, or failed-job behavior.

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?

It is a single dense sentence, but it is front-loaded with the triggering condition and then branches into each return case. Every clause carries information; the nested colons make it slightly hard to parse on first pass.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so well: it distinguishes in-progress versus completed responses and specifies the shape of each result type (full markdown, or link plus summary). An agent has enough to call it and interpret what comes back.

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 schema already documents job_id as coming from generate_asset, generate_portfolio_brief, or get_account_plan. The description restates the same origin information, adding no format or usage nuance beyond the schema, 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 action (collect a finished result) and enumerates exactly what kinds of artifacts come back: an asset, a brief, or an account plan, each tied to its producing sibling. It is clear what the tool returns, though the name 'get_asset' undersells that it also retrieves briefs and plans, so the description has to work a bit to correct the impression.

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 a concrete triggering condition: use it when the person asks whether something Andru started is done. It also clarifies the polling semantics (progress while building, full result when done). It does not name an alternative retrieval path such as list_assets, so the boundary with siblings is only partially drawn.

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