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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: the three-state model (waiting/complete/expired), the anti-polling rule, and the recovery path for expired links. It doesn't discuss rate limits or partial-failure edge cases, keeping it just short of a 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?

Front-loaded with the action and the return shape, then the status semantics; every clause carries information. The single long sentence with nested parentheses is dense and could be split into a status list for faster scanning, but there is 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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and defining each status value with the action it implies. For a one-parameter read tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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?

Only one parameter and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage ('upload_id que devolvió create_upload_link'). The description reinforces the provenance of that id but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Consulta un enlace de create_upload_link') and immediately names what it returns: received files with media_id, original name, type, duration, plus an overall status. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling create_upload_link (which creates the link) and from upload_media.

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?

Gives explicit when-not guidance ('si los sube la persona, pregúntale en vez de consultar en bucle' – don't poll in a loop) and a per-state action policy: for 'expired', use what arrived or request a new link for the rest. This routes the agent's behavior rather than leaving it to inference.

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