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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the polling interaction pattern, the exact state values, what becomes available once 'completed', and that errors are surfaced with actionable messages. It omits whether the call is read-only, any auth/permission requirements (despite an `authorization` parameter), and any rate-limit or polling-cost caveats.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the return contract before the usage instruction. No filler and every sentence adds distinct information (payload, polling trigger, error behavior).

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and states, which is the right move for a status-polling tool. The gap is parameter documentation for `session_id`/`authorization`, leaving the description one step short of fully self-contained.

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% and there are two parameters, so the description must compensate — but it never mentions `session_id` or `authorization`. An agent gets no statement of which session's attachments are returned or how credentials are supplied. The word 'attachment' implies session scoping only indirectly.

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 ('Returns each attachment's processing state') and enumerates the exact payload (pending/processing/completed/failed, extracted text length, chunk count). This is clearly the attachment-status reader, distinct from upload_attachment_base64, delete_attachment, and the generic get_job/list_jobs 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use context: 'Poll this after upload_attachment_base64 to know when an attachment becomes queryable by the AI.' It names the predecessor tool and the goal state, which is strong routing guidance. It lacks any when-not guidance or mention of how often/when to stop polling.

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