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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds two useful traits beyond that: it is free and does not start processing. However, it does not explain auth requirements, return shape, or error behavior, so the addition is modest.

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?

It is a single sentence with no filler, and the 'without starting processing' caveat earns its place. However, the phrasing 'follows the real phases' is awkward and not front-loaded as a clear action.

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?

Rich schema descriptions and safety annotations cover much of what an agent needs, so the short description is not fatal. Yet because there is no output schema, the description should clarify what 'phases and completion' actually returns; it only hints at it.

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 every parameter is documented in the schema, including the document id and the multiple auth-code parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 says it 'follows the real phases and the completion,' which gestures at status tracking, but it never states a clear verb and resource such as 'returns generation progress for a document.' It relies on the title for the generation context and does not distinguish this from sibling tools such as original_status.

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 'without starting processing' implies it is for checking status rather than triggering generation, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternative. An agent must infer how this differs from original_status or get_document.

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