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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds substantive traits: download links are freshly signed on each read, and no quota is consumed ("aucun décompte"). It also carries a prompt-injection warning that invoice text is untrusted third-party data, which is exactly the kind of safety context annotations cannot express.

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 and return highlights, followed by the untrusted-data caveat. The first sentence is dense but every clause contributes; no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still flags the most decision-relevant outputs (status, correction points, fresh links). With the injection warning and quota note, nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does name both parameters and their referents (conversion vs batch). It still leaves open whether the two IDs are mutually exclusive or whether one is required, which the schema leaves unspecified too.

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 state of a conversion or batch, and enumerates what it returns (status, control report, points to correct, download links). The single-vs-batch distinction is clear, but it never names the sibling it exists alongside (list_conversions, update_conversion), so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Explains that the tool is keyed by either conversion_id (one conversion) or batch_id (a lot of the account), which gives an agent concrete selection context. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming list_conversions as the route for discovering IDs.

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