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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds the key non-obvious trait that the import continues server-side after import_media answers, plus that polling costs no credits. It also enumerates all three terminal states and what each carries, which annotations cannot express. Slight redundancy in restating 'read-only' keeps it below 5.

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 dense sentence-group that front-loads the precondition and then the possible outcomes; nothing is wasted. It is crammed with parenthetical asides, which slightly hurts scanability.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates fully by describing the three possible return shapes (running, succeeded with page/crop media ids and panel spend, failed with error). Combined with the 100% schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to poll correctly.

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% and both parameters are documented in-schema, so the description does not need to carry param meaning. It reinforces where jobId comes from, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 (check an import job) and immediately ties it to the sibling import_media call that produced a 'running' status. That framing lets an agent distinguish it from import_media itself and from view_media without opening either schema.

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?

Names the exact trigger condition (import_media answered with status running, e.g. a long PDF or many panels) and the follow-up cadence (call again in a minute). The alternative source of the same data, import_media, is implicitly excluded because polling is only relevant after it returned.

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