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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the three return states and that 'done' carries the file's public link, which tells the agent what to expect from the call. It omits whether 'pending' requires re-polling or how long before 'expired' occurs.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that names the action, ties it to the creating tool, and lists outcomes with zero filler. Every clause carries information.

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 well by describing the return states and the public link on completion. For a one-parameter read-only status check, that is nearly complete; only polling/timing expectations are unstated.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already defines upload_id and its origin. The description only reinforces the link to create_upload_link and adds no format or constraint detail beyond it, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource ("Returns the status of an upload link") and ties it directly to the sibling that creates those links (create_upload_link). It also enumerates the possible outcomes, so an agent can distinguish it from upload_file, get_file, and create_upload_link without opening any schema.

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?

The phrase "created with create_upload_link" makes the usage condition clear: this is the follow-up check after creating an upload link. It stops short of explicit exclusions or polling guidance (e.g., how long to wait while pending), but the when-to-use context is unambiguous.

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