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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint/destructiveHint, and the description still adds real value: the three possible statuses, which fields accompany 'completed', and the entity-specific variant for supplier-invoice links ('draft_id' + 'review_url' instead of 'document_id'). What it omits is timing behavior — how long a link stays pending and how often it is safe to poll.

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 scope, then the return states, with every parenthetical carrying distinct information. It is dense but not padded; the nested parenthetical about the supplier-invoice variant is the only slightly tangled part.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden — and it enumerates all three statuses plus the key fields returned in the success case, including the divergent shape for supplier-invoice uploads. Nothing an agent needs to call it and act on the result 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 carry the single parameter, and it does: it identifies 'token' as the one-time upload link identifier obtained from 'request_upload_link', which tells the agent where the value comes from. It adds no format/example, but provenance is the meaningful gap here and it is filled.

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 one-time upload link ... by its token') and immediately anchors it to the sibling that produces the token ('request_upload_link'), so an agent knows this is the follow-up poll to that call rather than any of the other *_status tools in the catalog.

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?

Implies the when: use this after requesting a one-time upload link, and it gives explicit action guidance for the terminal 'completed' state ('link/index it now'). It does not state polling cadence or explicitly say to stop calling once 'completed'/'expired', so the when-not side is only implied.

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