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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does useful work by disclosing the possible status values (converting, ready, failed) and the accompanying fields, which hints at read-only polling behavior. However, it never states that the call is non-mutating, what happens for an unknown/expired id, or how errors surface.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no filler, so it is not bloated, but it is a noun phrase describing outputs rather than a front-loaded statement of action. There is no wasted text yet also no structural cue about what the tool does.

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 lookup tool with no output schema, no annotations, and an undocumented required parameter, the description should at minimum state that it fetches a file's metadata by id. Instead it only lists return fields, leaving action, input meaning, and failure behavior uncovered alongside three sibling tools it never disambiguates from.

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?

The schema has one required parameter at 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate and does not: the word 'id' never appears and the identifier's origin, type, or format is left entirely implicit. Only the phrase 'of an uploaded file' loosely ties the input to a media identifier.

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 the resource (an uploaded file) and enumerates the fields it exposes (status, URL, expiry, fetch count), which implies retrieval, but it never states a verb or that it looks up a single file by identifier. It also gives no differentiation from the sibling check_media, which sounds like it could return status too.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternatives (check_media, upload_media, delete_media). The agent must guess whether get_media or check_media is the right call for checking an upload's status.

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