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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the substantive payload — progress, validation errors, uploaded paths, deadlines, binding status — which is exactly what an agent needs to know this is a polling/status read. It stops short of saying whether results become stale or when polling is unnecessary.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and the sibling redirect immediately after. The trailing 'MCP version 2.12.' is boilerplate but is needed to justify the mcp_version pattern constraint, so it 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, which is the key completeness requirement here. The main remaining gap is the origin/validity of upload_id, which neither the description nor the schema covers.

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 50%: mcp_version is fully documented in the schema, but upload_id has no schema description. The description only says to use it 'with upload_id' and does not state where the id comes from (presumably upload_resources) or what happens on an unknown id. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries most weight.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('check upload progress, validation errors, uploaded paths, deadlines and binding status'), which tells an agent exactly what it will learn. It also distinguishes itself from get_resource_upload_instructions by pointing there for workflow instead of duplicating it, though the phrasing 'use this tool with upload_id' is slightly procedural rather than descriptive.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get_resource_upload_instructions for usage and workflow, giving a clear boundary between the two tools. It does not state when the tool should not be called (e.g. before an upload exists or with an expired upload_id).

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