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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the status can be processing, complete, or error, which is useful. However, it does not describe the response shape, error details, or whether repeated polling is expected beyond the implication of the word 'Poll'.

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 short sentences with no filler, front-loading the action and the key statuses. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core behavior.

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 simple one-parameter polling tool, the description is close to sufficient, and listing the statuses hints at the return value. However, without an output schema or annotations, it should also mention where session_id comes from and what a complete or error response contains.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does indicate that session_id identifies the conversion job, adding a bit of meaning beyond the bare string type. It does not explain how to obtain session_id, such as from a convert_statement response.

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 states a specific verb ('Poll') and a specific resource ('a conversion job'), and it lists the possible statuses, so the tool's purpose is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like convert_statement or get_transactions, but the function is distinct enough by name and phrasing.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus convert_statement or get_transactions, and it does not mention prerequisites such as where session_id comes from. The word 'Poll' only implies that this is for checking job status after submission, but the tool does not say that explicitly.

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