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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description contributes the actual state machine (pending/uploaded/failed/expired) and what each state means for downstream action. It does not say whether the call is cheap enough to poll, how long before pending turns to expired, or where the error payload lives, which would be the remaining behavioral detail.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and its source, then a compact parenthetical mapping each state to its consequence. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of explaining return values by enumerating the four possible statuses and their meanings, which is exactly what an agent needs to branch on. Minor gaps remain (expiry timing, where the error detail is surfaced, polling expectations) that keep it from being fully self-sufficient.

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 ticket_uid is already documented as coming from create_upload_link, so the description only echoes the schema's origin note. No additional syntax, format, or lifetime semantics for the ticket are added; 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?

States a specific resource and operation – retrieving the status of a link produced by create_upload_link – and names the originating sibling tool, so an agent can place it in the upload workflow without inspecting the schema. It is distinguishable from create_upload_link and create_post, the siblings that share its domain.

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?

Goes beyond mere purpose by prescribing the next action per state (use media_uid in create_post when uploaded; create a new link when failed), which effectively tells an agent where to go next. It lacks an explicit statement of when to poll versus wait, or that this should be called after create_upload_link rather than before, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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