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

With readOnlyHint and destructiveHint already provided, the description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it discloses the exact status transitions and that a successful completion includes a url. This gives the agent a clear model of how polling behaves.

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?

The description is a single tight sentence that front-loads the action ('Poll a PDF job') and then packs the essential state machine into the rest. No redundant words or filler.

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 one-parameter polling tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: when to poll, what statuses to expect, what success looks like, and what failure looks like. There is no meaningful gap.

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 job_id as 'Job ID from generate_pdf'. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable given the complete schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Poll') with a clear resource ('a PDF job') and defines the full lifecycle: pending → processing → complete (with a url) or failed. This makes the tool's function immediately obvious and distinguishes it from PDF generation and other status-checking tools.

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 'Poll a PDF job' clearly implies this is the follow-up to generate_pdf, and the job_id parameter description reinforces that the ID comes from generate_pdf. It provides clear context, though it does not explicitly name an alternative or state when not to use it.

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