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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes beyond them by disclosing permission scoping (current grant only) and the creator-exception authorization path. This is genuinely useful authorization context that the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and identifier, then the permission scope, then the result caveat. Every sentence carries information; nothing is redundant or padded, though the permission sentences could be tightened.

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 single-parameter lookup with no nested objects and no output schema, the description covers purpose, authorization scope, and the key result caveat (only complete operations have final results). It could say more about the shape of a returned result or failure modes given the absence of an output schema, but it is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 0% for the single 'id' parameter, so the description must carry the load — and it does partially by identifying the value as a job ID for a queued operation. It adds no format, source, or lookup guidance, and the UUID shape is only discoverable from the schema, so it compensates incompletely.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Check a queued file operation') and scopes it to an identifier ('by job ID'), which is precise enough to distinguish it from the many list/read siblings like get_history or get_activity. It stops short of the 5 level only because it never names a closely related alternative tool the agent might confuse it with.

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 description gives real usage context: an agent may only check operations from its current grant, and document creators have an exception allowing them to see their own creation results without general resource read access. It also hints at polling behavior ('Only complete operations have final results'), though it never states explicitly when to poll versus when to stop or what to do on an unknown/incomplete job.

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