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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, yet the description goes well beyond them: it documents the full status state machine, the PENDING/DONE/FAILED processing lifecycle including `failedAt: UNPACK`, the bridgeSdk tri-state, null analysis fields, and the gating rule that publishing/submitting depend on `state` while sandbox traffic also requires `bridgeSdk` FOUND.

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?

It is a single dense paragraph but front-loads the core fact ('The state of one archive') and every sentence carries field-level meaning or an actionable rule. It is long, though, and would read better segmented, which keeps it from a 5.

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 full burden of explaining return values, and it does so comprehensively: status values, processing states, bridgeSdk states, analysis fields, and how each maps to a developer action. Nothing an agent needs to interpret the response 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 both parameters are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about archiveId or applicationId beyond what the schema already states.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'The state of one archive,' and immediately enumerates the meaning of `state.status`. The resource noun 'archive' separates it from get_sandbox_state and get_submission_state, though no sibling is named explicitly, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

It gives concrete operational guidance: 'Poll until it is no longer CHECKING,' and routes the agent to get_bridge_sdk_docs and get_archive_qa_tool_link with a specific mode when status is PROBLEM. No explicit when-not-to-use statement is given, but the polling and remediation conditions are clear.

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