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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so "changes nothing" largely restates structured data. The added "Free" supplies cost/pricing context not present in the annotations, but no return-format or polling-cadence detail is offered.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the operational caveat following. Maximally efficient.

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 single-parameter status-polling tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to call it, and its cost/safety posture. Nothing critical is missing, though it does not describe the status values returned.

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 0%, so the schema gives only a uuid pattern with no prose. The description compensates partially by clarifying the parameter is the "original clientRequestId" from the prior export request, but adds no further syntax or format guidance.

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 (read) and resource (status of an editor export), and scopes it by the identifying key. It clearly reads a status rather than initiating an export, implicitly distinguishing it from soclo_editor_export, but it does not name that sibling to remove all 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?

"after transport loss and until it is finished" gives concrete usage context: call it when the original export response was lost, and poll it until completion. It stops short of explicitly naming alternative status tools (e.g. editor_film_status), but the when-to-use condition is clearly stated.

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