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 the state model (queued/running/succeeded/failed) and the success-case semantics for 'free' and 'fast', but with an output schema present much of the field-level detail is duplicated rather than new.

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 short sentences with zero waste; the state enumeration is front-loaded so the most useful information comes first.

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?

With an output schema documenting the response and annotations covering read-only safety, the description only needs to frame the operation, which it does. Minor gaps remain around error/not-found behavior and polling expectations, but nothing essential for a correct call 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?

There is a single required job_id with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains it ('Job id from start_download or download'). The description adds no further parameter semantics, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 resource and action ('Status of a job') and enumerates the four possible states, so an agent immediately knows this is a read of job state. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_download_link or check_link, leaving some ambiguity about which retrieval tool to pick.

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?

Usage is only implied: the reader infers you call this after start_download or download to poll a job, which is reinforced by the schema parameter text but never stated in the description. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative among the many sibling retrieval tools.

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