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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent, describing a read-only lookup. The description adds behavioral traits beyond annotations: it states there is no credit cost and that files expire, requiring a new upload. These are important operational details not present in the annotations.

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 two concise sentences, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and additional operational details in the second. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and read-only behavior, and the description covers purpose, cost, and expiry. However, it does not describe the output structure or any error conditions, which could be important for an agent to know. Given the simplicity, it is fairly complete but not fully comprehensive.

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?

The schema has one required parameter, requestId, with 0% description coverage. The description mentions requestId in the context of expiry, implying it is the identifier for the operation, but it does not explicitly define its role or format beyond the schema pattern. Since the description carries the burden for parameter explanation, it only partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'look up' and a specific resource 'owned operation and its temporary output', making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are all document processing operations, as this is about retrieving job results.

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 provides key usage context: it notes there is no credit cost and that expired files require a new upload and requestId. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, it implies that if the file has expired, one should re-upload and get a new requestId, which guides usage. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the context is sufficient.

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