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

Adds substantial context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: the full status enum, the 100 KB inline-vs-result_url branch, the 7-day retention with expiry surfaced in error, the API key requirement, and the free/non-metered billing note. This is exactly the behavioral detail structured fields do not carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then organized into short paragraphs covering return values, retention, and cost/auth. Every sentence carries operational information; nothing is padding.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description enriches it with the semantics of each status branch, the size threshold behavior, and expiry handling, plus auth and billing constraints. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 the single job_id parameter is documented as coming from submit_conversion_job, so the description adds nothing parameter-specific. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full burden.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check a queued conversion job') and pins it to the job the caller previously submitted, which cleanly separates it from submit_conversion_job (which creates the job) and convert_document (which presumably runs synchronously). An agent can identify the polling role without opening the 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the phrase 'you submitted' signals this is the follow-up poll to submit_conversion_job, but the description never explicitly says when to call it, how often to poll, or that it should not be used instead of convert_document. Adequate but inferential.

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