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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the exact result categories and a deliberate access boundary ('never returns raw unpaid document text'), which tells the agent what it will and will not get back.

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 sentences with no filler, but the first is a run-on list of 'whether...' clauses that is not front-loaded with a purpose statement, so the reader must assemble the tool's role from the enumeration rather than a leading verb. Compact but weakly structured.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of describing return values and does so across the four status categories, plus the privacy caveat. For a simple two-parameter read it is nearly complete; only failure/error behavior (e.g., invalid or expired token) is unaddressed.

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 100% and both parameters (case_id, access_token) are documented in the schema as coming from start_document, so the schema carries the load. The description adds no parameter-level meaning such as format, validation, or token expiry, 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?

The description enumerates exactly what status information the tool surfaces (payment state, protected-draft processing state, review acceptance, dashboard link), which lets an agent distinguish it from get_payment_link (returns a link, not a paid/unpaid flag) and prepare_protected_draft (triggers the draft, this reports on it). It stops short of a clean verb+resource statement like 'Returns the status of a case', reading instead as a fragment list, so it is clear but not exemplary.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The agent can infer this is a polling/status check after start_document, but that sequencing and any exclusion of get_document is left entirely to inference.

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