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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious operational context the annotations cannot convey: multi-minute latency, that polling is wasteful, and that a human review step follows. It does not cover error/not-found behavior or how long results remain retrievable, keeping it short of 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 sentences, zero filler, and the useful constraints (call once, no polling) are front-loaded right after the purpose statement. Every clause earns its place.

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 carries the return-value burden and does name the returned fields (stage, passes, final status), plus the timing expectation an agent needs to interpret those values. Nothing required to invoke or interpret the call correctly 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 description coverage is 100% and the single job_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including UUID format and origin. The description reinforces the link to start_conversion but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 (Get) and resource (PDF conversion status), and enumerates exactly what is returned: stage, completed passes, final status. It ties the resource to the sibling that created it (start_conversion), so an agent can distinguish this status-lookup from the other form/application 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?

Explicitly states when to call (once, when the user asks for progress) and when not to (do not poll in a loop), with the reason given (conversion takes a few minutes; new templates need human review). This is a rare case of a tool actively steering the agent away from a plausible misuse.

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