get_carousel_render

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the return shape — assets are full media attachments with id/type/url/key/filename/mimeType/size in slide order — which is essential given there is no output schema. It does not describe the status field or its possible values.

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 tight sentences, with the action front-loaded and the follow-up workflow second. Every clause carries information the agent needs, with no 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?

With no output schema, the description does well to enumerate the asset fields, but it only covers the completed state. An agent polling this tool would benefit from knowing what the status values are and how in-progress or failed renders appear, which is missing.

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 single parameter already documents itself as the render ID from render_carousel. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline for full 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Check a carousel render job.' This clearly separates it from the sibling render_carousel (which initiates the job) and is reinforced by the schema note 'Render ID from render_carousel.' It stops short of explicitly naming the counterpart it pairs with in prose, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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 explicit downstream guidance: pass the returned assets straight into create_post's media array to draft or schedule the post, which tells the agent both the follow-up tool and the purpose. It does not say how often to poll, what to do while the render is still running, or how to handle a failed render.

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