Get Generation Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read operation' adds nothing beyond structured data. The one piece of genuinely additive context is 'Jobs are owner-scoped,' which tells the agent visibility is limited to the owner's jobs; nothing is said about polling cadence, status lifecycle, or terminal states.

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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by a scoping note and base URL. Slightly marred by the redundant 'Read operation.' trailing line and the inline HTML anchor markup, which is noise for an agent.

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 carries the burden of describing what a status response looks like, and it says nothing about the returned fields or possible status values. For a status-polling tool this is a meaningful gap, though the input contract is fully covered by the schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (id, account) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond it, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the status of an on-demand asset generation job') and scopes it to jobs 'created with the generate endpoint', which distinguishes it from the sibling generate_asset. It stops short of naming the sibling directly, so an agent must infer the pairing from the endpoint reference.

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 phrase 'created with the generate endpoint' implies this is the follow-up polling call to generate_asset, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative is given. The 'owner-scoped' note is a constraint rather than usage direction.

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