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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description's real contribution is the blocking behavior: 'Waits up to ~25 seconds for the job to finish.' That is a meaningful trait an agent cannot infer from structured fields. It omits what happens when the 25 seconds elapse (error vs. pending status), which keeps it from a 5.

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 no filler; the action and the timeout behavior are front-loaded. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 does the right thing by naming the return payload ('download links once complete') and the wait window. It is still slightly thin on the non-success paths — no mention of a pending/failed state or timeout result — which matters for a polling tool an agent may need to loop.

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 parameter at 100% schema coverage, and the schema already says 'The job_id returned by convert_file' — the description merely restates that provenance. No additional format, validation, or reuse guidance is added beyond the schema, 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 ('Check a conversion... started by convert_file') and adds the outcome ('get its download links once complete'). It explicitly ties back to the sibling that created the job, so an agent can distinguish it from convert_file and list_supported_formats without opening any schema.

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 phrase 'started by convert_file that was still processing' clearly establishes the trigger condition: call this after convert_file returns a job that is not yet done. It stops short of stating what to do if the job is already complete or failed, or how to re-poll after a timeout, so it lacks explicit alternatives/exclusions.

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