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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive), and the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: the exact return surface (state, expiry time, link), the full state enum, and explicit negative guarantees (never returns the script, title, or contents). This is the kind of disclosure that prevents an agent from misusing the result.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger, then the call contract, then the return contract and scope limits. Each sentence carries distinct information; nothing is restated from 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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still summarizes the return payload and its enum, and it closes the loop on scope limitations. For a two-parameter, read-only status lookup with full sibling references, nothing an agent needs in order to call it 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 coverage is 100%, so the origin of each id is already documented in the schema. The description nevertheless adds a constraint the schema does not express — 'Pass exactly one' of item_id or link_id — which is real operational value since the schema declares no required fields and no mutual exclusion. It does not, however, explain what happens if both or neither are passed.

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 names a specific verb (check) and resource (a script sent to blablabla) and enumerates exactly what is being checked: arrival, import, or expiry. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the two sibling tools that produce the identifiers it consumes (send_to_blablabla, get_blablabla_upload_link).

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?

Opens with 'Use when the user asks whether a script they sent... has arrived, been imported, or expired,' giving a concrete trigger condition. It also names the originating siblings for each input and states the exclusion ('cannot list or search what is in the user's blablabla account'), routing the agent away from using this as a listing tool.

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