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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: return fields (state, phase, diagnostic codes, signed link when ready) and polling semantics with terminal states. It omits auth or rate-limit details, but those are less central for this tool.

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 that are front-loaded with the tool's return payload, followed by clear usage conditions and alternative routing. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

Given one fully described parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies the necessary return details, polling behavior, and routing to an alternative. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 100% and the single id parameter is fully documented with its pattern. The description explains that batch/carousel IDs require polling until terminal state, which is somewhat semantic for the ID type, but does not add syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (get) and the returned information (safe state, phase, diagnostic codes, signed result link when ready), and explicitly distinguishes itself from get_template for template chat messages. An agent can identify the tool's scope without ambiguity.

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 instructs to wait until terminal states (complete, partial, failed, cancelled) for batch or carousel jobs, and names the alternative get_template for template chat messages. Both the usage condition and the alternative routing are clear.

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