gemini_get_operation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by stating what the response contains — a done flag and any error details — which is behavior beyond the 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 tight sentences with zero waste; the core purpose is front-loaded and the return-value note follows immediately. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 must convey what comes back, and it does so briefly (completion state plus error details). For a single-parameter, read-only status check this is nearly complete, though it omits any note on polling cadence or operation expiry.

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% for the single operation_name parameter, and the schema even supplies a concrete example resource path. The description adds no additional meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific verb ("Check the status") and resource ("a store operation"), and enumerates the operation kinds it covers (create, delete, import). This distinguishes it reasonably well from the sibling gemini_get_upload_operation, though the separation is by implication rather than explicit contrast.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent can infer this is used to poll the status of an operation kicked off by create/delete/import. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call it (e.g., after a long-running create/import) and no mention of the upload-operation alternative.

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