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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response includes processing status, a useful behavioral detail, but introduces no further context about auth or side effects. This modest addition justifies a mid score.

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?

Two short sentences deliver the operation and the motivating use case without redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the core action and the second provides context.

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?

Given the simple read-only profile, three well-documented required parameters, and an output schema, the description covers everything needed to invoke the tool correctly. The use-case sentence closes the remaining gap of why an agent might call it.

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 includes a helpful clarification that form_id must be a form UUID, not the short share_id. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource — 'Get the media attached to a node' — and adds a distinctive detail, 'including processing status,' which separates it from generic retrieval or from attach/search siblings. The use case about checking video upload processing further clarifies the tool's unique role.

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 phrase 'Useful for checking if a video upload has finished processing' tells an agent when to invoke this tool over other media operations. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or conditions when not to use it, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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