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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context beyond that: jobs are derived from the id rather than stored, so they never expire, and download_url points at the finished artifact. It stops short of describing any failure/unknown-id behavior or the possible status values.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the return pointer, then the lifecycle caveat. Nothing is wasted and there is no filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers nearly everything an agent needs; return values need not be re-explained. The one gap is that it asserts status becomes succeeded immediately without enumerating other possible statuses or error outcomes, leaving a small ambiguity about when this call is actually informative.

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% and the single parameter already documents itself as "the job id returned by create_catalog_export," which the description largely restates. No new format, validation, or naming-convention detail is added 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?

"Report the status of an export started by create_catalog_export" gives a specific verb (report status) plus the exact resource (an export job) and ties it to the sibling that produces the id. An agent can distinguish this from create_catalog_export and the other siblings without opening any schema.

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 establishes the context of use (after create_catalog_export has returned a job id) and implicitly steers away from polling. It does not name a scenario where you would deliberately check a job later, nor does it state what to do if the id is unknown, but the when-to-use signal is clear.

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