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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds that this retrieves a job's status and download link, but it does not explain status values, polling semantics, link availability, or error behavior; with no output schema, that leaves some behavioral gaps.

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 states the return values and the id source with no wasteful wording. The parenthetical is compact and useful.

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 simple one-parameter read-only retrieval tool, the description covers the input origin and the main return values. It could be richer about status states, but it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the 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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter type and description are already supplied. The description adds useful meaning by identifying the id as the job id from translate_document or convert_to_word, not just a generic translation id.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns'), the exact outputs ('status and download link'), and ties them to jobs created by translate_document or convert_to_word. This clearly separates the tool from its creation siblings.

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?

It tells the agent the id must come from a job started with translate_document or convert_to_word, which gives clear usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention get_upload_link, but the intended sequence is clear.

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