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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context such as scope (per-file vs batch vs tenant-wide), polling expectations, or freshness of status data.

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?

Short, but the opening sentence is repeated verbatim and the remainder is metadata (operation ID) rather than substance. It is front-loaded with a restatement instead of a useful purpose statement.

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 status endpoint with an empty, untyped parameter object and no output schema, the agent needs to know what status values or fields come back and what identifiers scope the query. None of that is provided, and nothing compensates for the zero schema coverage.

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% and both parameters ('query' and empty 'params') are undocumented containers. The description's mention that describe_operation supplies native request schemas is a useful hint but does not identify what filters or identifiers the parameters accept, leaving the agent to make an extra call to learn anything.

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 merely restates the endpoint path 'GET /api/files/extraction-status' twice without saying what the operation actually returns or what an 'extraction status' is. It does not distinguish this tool from close siblings like get_files_bulk_extract_by_batchId_statu_... or get_files_by_id_extract_text_....

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?

No statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for extraction-related queries. The only guidance is a pointer that 'describe_operation provides native request schemas,' which is about how to inspect the tool, not when to select it.

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