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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety bar is low. The description adds two things beyond them: that the call is free/no-cost and that it must be polled until a 'done' flag is true, which is meaningful behavioral context for a long-running job tool.

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 cost and purpose, and the polling instruction is stated plainly. 'Free.' is terse product framing rather than task detail, but it does convey cost relevance for a repeated-poll call, so it mostly earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return shape (including the done flag and result) needn't be restated in prose. Combined with annotations covering side effects, the description is complete enough; a suggested poll interval or error-handling note would round it out.

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 0% and the single jobId property has no description, so the description must carry the load. It partially does by implying jobId is the identifier returned by pdf-text_v1, but gives no format, source field name, or validity/lifetime guidance.

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 the resource (job status and result) and ties it explicitly to the sibling that creates the job, pdf-text_v1, so an agent can tell it apart from the creation tool. It is a noun phrase rather than a crisp verb+resource, but the intent is unmistakable.

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?

'Poll until done is true' gives an explicit operational instruction: call repeatedly, stop when the done flag flips. It also implicitly scopes usage to jobs created by pdf-text_v1. It doesn't state what to do on failure/error states, which keeps it from a 5.

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