Check Blog Creation Status

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

Annotations already declare `readOnlyHint: true` and `destructiveHint: false`, so the description adds value by detailing the polling behavior and expected response fields (`done`, `status`, `result`). No contradictions with annotations.

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, no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the polling mechanics are explained efficiently. 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?

For a simple polling tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers usage, polling intervals, and result states. It could specify the exact response structure more, but the mention of key fields suffices.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a description for `workflow_id`. The description reiterates the parameter's origin from `create_blog` but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 polls the status of a blog-creation workflow, explicitly referencing the triggering tool `create_blog` and the `workflow_id` parameter. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `check_page_status` by specifying the workflow context.

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 polling instructions: when to call after `create_blog`, the interval to wait (`poll_after_ms`), and stopping conditions (`done` true). It could be more explicit about when not to use it (e.g., versus batch variants), but the guidance is otherwise solid.

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