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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the API exposes no read-only status call, so this call starts or refreshes processing, mutating the app's last-updated timestamp, and an unknown app id returns an error. This directly resolves the trap of reading a 'check' tool as a safe read (annotations do correctly declare readOnlyHint=false).

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?

Three sentences, no redundancy, and the mutated-state warning is front-and-center right after the purpose. Every sentence carries distinct information (readiness semantics, mutation side effect, error behavior).

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 no output schema, the description should ideally hint at what the returned status looks like (e.g., pending/processed/failed and per-feature readiness), which is the one gap for a 'check status' tool. Otherwise it covers purpose, side effects, and error behavior adequately for a 4-param mutation-adjacent tool.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description earns above baseline by explaining that the boolean flags correspond to 'the requested features' whose processing is started/refreshed, tying the flags to an observable side effect rather than just 'check X support'.

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+resource ('check whether an uploaded app has been processed') and scopes it to real devices and the features it gates (image injection, network logs, screenshot unblock). It cannot be confused with listUploadedApps or deleteUploadedApps, though it never names a sibling tool to route away from.

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 implied usage is clear enough — call it to confirm an uploaded app is ready before relying on injection/network-log/screenshot-unblock features. However, it never states when NOT to call it, names no alternative, and gives no precondition such as 'requires the app to be uploaded first'.

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