check_generation

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds value beyond that by guaranteeing no new charges and explaining that requestId lookup survives restarts and host changes. It also instructs the agent to follow structured status and nextAction, giving practical behavioral guidance.

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?

Four concise sentences, each earning its place: purpose, identifier rule, recovery scenario, and action guidance. The most important information is front-loaded, with no redundant phrasing.

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?

Given the output schema, full parameter documentation, and readOnly annotation, the description covers the essential operational details: what the tool reads, how to identify the job, recovery scenarios, and a caution against unnecessary paid actions. Nothing critical is missing for 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantic guidance by clarifying the OR relationship between generationId and requestId and explaining when requestId lookup is valuable, which is not fully captured in the schema. It does not add much for requestedMediaType, but the schema already documents that parameter well.

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 first sentence states a specific action and resource: 'Read an existing MeiGen job without new charges.' This clearly distinguishes a read/status operation from the generation siblings like generate_image and generate_video, and clarifies the non-billing aspect upfront.

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 gives concrete when-to-use context: after a lost submit response, process restart, or another host. It also explicitly warns against converting an uncertain status into a new paid UUID, effectively telling the agent when not to fall back to generation.

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