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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, non-open-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations by naming the waiting/uploading/ready states and explaining what is returned once ready.

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 a single efficient sentence with the core status-checking purpose and readiness outcome front-loaded. There is no unnecessary explanation.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, status values, and the successful ready-state return. It leaves minor gaps around uploadId sourcing and error behavior, but is otherwise 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?

Schema coverage is 50%: projectId is documented as coming from list_projects, while uploadId has no schema description. The description connects this to create_upload_link, which gives helpful context, but it does not explicitly explain that uploadId is the link identifier returned by that sibling.

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 states a specific operation: checking whether the file behind an upload link has arrived, with the possible statuses named. It explicitly references create_upload_link, helping distinguish this read/status tool from the link-creation sibling.

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 clearly implied as checking the status of an upload link created by create_upload_link. It does not state explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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