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

The annotations already establish the read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive nature. The description adds meaningful context beyond those flags by specifying that the return value is an authenticated PDF endpoint and that readiness is a precondition. There is no contradiction with 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every element—'authenticated', 'PDF endpoint', 'after ready'—adds necessary information without redundancy.

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 a rich input schema, strong annotations, and an output schema present, the minimal description covers the core need. The main gap is the absence of guidance for the not-ready case and no explicit statement that both order_id and access_token are required, though the schema supplies that.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameters. It only indirectly alludes to them: 'Check' maps to order_id and 'authenticated' maps to access_token. It does not explain how the parameters are used, the required patterns, or the meaning of the returned endpoint.

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 clearly states the verb ('Return'), the resource ('PDF endpoint'), and the domain ('Check'), which is enough to tell it apart from the instant-brief siblings. It does not explicitly contrast it with get_check_result or get_check_status, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'after the Check is ready' gives an explicit timing condition, implying this tool should only be called once readiness is confirmed. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over get_check_result or get_check_status, and no mention of what to do if the Check is not ready.

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