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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description goes well beyond them by enumerating the task_status values, explaining the 100 KB threshold that switches the response from inline `markdown` to a `result_url`, describing the `error` shape on failure, and stating the 7-day deletion window. It also discloses auth ('Requires an API key') and cost ('free, not metered'), which are exactly the operational facts an agent needs and which no annotation conveys.

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 first clause identifies the tool's role, then it front-loads the returned fields before the conditionals (markdown vs result_url, failure error). Every sentence carries a distinct operational fact — statuses, size cap, retention, auth, credits — with no restatement of the name or title.

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 single-parameter status-check tool this covers the full lifecycle concerns: what comes back in each status, how large results are delivered, how errors surface, how long results survive, and the auth/cost model. Even though an output schema exists, the size-based branching and retention policy are behavioral facts worth stating and they are stated.

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 100% and the single `task_id` parameter is already documented as coming from `convert_document`, so the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. With one fully-documented parameter and an output schema present, the baseline 3 is the correct ceiling for added value here.

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') and anchors it to the sibling tool that produces the input ('you started with `convert_document`'). An agent can tell immediately this is the status-polling counterpart to conversion submission, not a converter itself.

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 description establishes the workflow context by tying the tool to a prior `convert_document` call, which implies the polling pattern, and it discloses practical constraints (7-day retention, free/not metered, API key needed). It stops short of explicit guidance on polling cadence or when to stop retrying versus re-submitting after a `failure`, so it is clear context but not full when/when-not routing.

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