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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real behavioral context: it is free, the response is no-store, and it explicitly does not deliver content, grant access, confirm pages, or start a generation. This goes beyond what the structured fields provide.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, but the two negative sentences overlap heavily ('does not ask for a download or a generation' vs 'does not... start a generation'), creating redundancy rather than added 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?

For a simple, fully-documented, single-param read tool this is mostly sufficient, but with no output schema the description should hint at the shape of the returned status rather than only enumerating what it does not return.

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?

There is a single 'id' parameter with 100% schema coverage, and the schema already documents it as a Document ID from get_procurement. The description adds nothing about the parameter, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Reads the status of the original') and distinguishes itself from the download/generation siblings. 'Original' alone is slightly ambiguous, but the title and the 'does not ask for a download or a generation' clause pin down the resource.

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?

Offers exclusionary guidance ('does not ask for a download or a generation'), implicitly routing agents away from request_original and generation_status, and notes it is 'free' so polling is cheap. However there is no explicit 'use this when...' statement, so selection relies on inference.

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