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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with that read-only profile. It adds behavioral detail beyond the annotations by disclosing that the download URL is valid for 90 days and only appears once the job is complete.

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 short and front-loaded, putting the core status and URL behavior in the first sentence. The German and English lines repeat the same information, which is slightly redundant, but the bilingual presentation still keeps the description compact and readable.

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 low-complexity tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: it returns job status and, when complete, a download URL with a 90-day validity. It does not enumerate possible status values or failure behavior, but that is a minor gap for a simple poll-style status tool.

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 should compensate for missing parameter documentation. It only refers to 'an archive export job' and never explains the required jobId parameter or the optional reasoning parameter. While jobId's UUID format is self-explanatory, the description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Liefert'/'Returns') and names the exact resource: the status of an archive export job. It also adds the completion condition and the 90-day download URL, making the tool's role unmistakable and distinguishing it from archive_export by function and name.

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?

The description clearly frames the tool as a status-retrieval endpoint for a previously created export job, which strongly implies it should be used after archive_export to check completion and obtain the download URL. It does not explicitly name archive_export as the counterpart or state when not to use it, but the contextual signal is clear.

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