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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful lifecycle context: `status` moves from queued to uploading to success or failed, and it explains the success and failure result fields. It does not mention polling cadence or auth requirements, but those are not critical given the annotations and output schema.

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 tightly written sentences. It front-loads the action and provides the status lifecycle and result interpretation without unnecessary text.

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?

Given the simple two-parameter schema, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: what is being checked, the status progression, and what success/failure returns mean. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke 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?

`history_id` is clarified as coming from `export_list_to_ads`, which is useful beyond the schema's own parameter description. However, `platform` is only covered by the enum in the schema, and the description does not explain its semantics or how platform affects the check.

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 and resource: checking an Ad Platform Export by `history_id`. It explicitly ties the tool to `export_list_to_ads`, which distinguishes it from sibling tools such as `ads_export_options` and `job_status`.

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 clearly says to use this tool for an export started with `export_list_to_ads`, giving the prerequisite context. It does not explicitly discuss when to prefer alternatives such as `job_status`, so it falls short of full alternative routing guidance.

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