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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable context beyond these: resuming counts toward export limits, links are short-lived, links require current connection access, and re-requesting status renews expired links. This is meaningful behavioral detail that annotations don't cover. However, it doesn't specify what 'eligible' means for resuming or error conditions, so not a 5.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and the second sentence packs useful constraints. No wasted words. Could be slightly more structured with bullet points or clearer separation, but it's 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 simple status-check tool with 1 parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main behaviors: checking, resuming, link generation, link expiration. It omits details like what 'eligible' means and what the response contains (though no output schema exists, so that's acceptable). Overall fairly complete for the tool's complexity.

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% and there's only 1 parameter (exportJobId). The description doesn't explain the parameter format or meaning, but with a single required parameter and baseline 4 for 0 params, the lack of any parameter info is a minor gap. A 3 is appropriate because the schema provides the pattern and name, but the description adds nothing about it.

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 clearly states a specific verb+resource: check an export, resume rendering, receive download links. This distinguishes it from siblings like export_resume (which likely creates a new export) and get_resume. However, it doesn't explicitly name or differentiate from export_resume, so it's not a 5.

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?

Implies usage by mentioning 'existing export' and 'resume unfinished rendering when eligible', but doesn't state when NOT to use it or explicitly point to alternatives like export_resume for creating new exports. No exclusions or clear conditions for choosing among siblings.

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