Check Website Creation Status

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains the polling nature, the conditions for re-calling, the possible values of 'status' (complete, partial, errored), and the structure of 'result.pages'. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, and the description enriches them with detailed runtime 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?

The description is four sentences long, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the tool's function, explaining how to use it, guiding polling behavior, and describing the output. It is well-structured and contains no redundant information.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the response fields (done, status, result.pages) and the polling logic. However, it does not specify where 'poll_after_ms' comes from (presumably from the 'create_website' response), which could be clarified. Overall, it is largely complete.

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 a single required parameter 'workflow_id' with a clear description. The description reinforces that it comes from 'create_website', which adds minimal extra value. Schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate; no additional parameter-level details are provided beyond the schema.

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 it polls the status of a website-creation workflow started by 'create_website', using the 'workflow_id' from that tool. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'check_blog_status' or 'batch_check_website_status' by specifying the exact workflow and origin.

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?

It explicitly instructs to call this after 'create_website' and to poll repeatedly after 'poll_after_ms' ms while the workflow is running. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear and sufficient for correct usage.

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