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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: results only appear 'when completed', and evidence URLs are 'temporary signed' — signalling expiry and non-permanence.

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?

A single sentence with the read action front-loaded and the conditional payoff ('when completed') trailing it. No filler; every clause adds information.

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 usefully sketches the return payload (observations plus temporary signed URLs). However, for a token-gated status endpoint it omits auth semantics, polling cadence, and states such as pending/expired/not-found, all of which an agent needs.

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%, so the description carries the full burden for the two required parameters — yet it explains neither. It never clarifies that request_id identifies the submission or that status_token is a credential required for access, leaving both parameters semantically opaque.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('current request state'), making it clearly a polling/status-retrieval tool. It is distinguishable from the create/cancel/prepare siblings by its name and read semantics, though it never explicitly names an alternative.

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 guidance on when to call this versus the sibling tools, no mention that it should be polled after create/prepare, and no indication of expected timing or retry behavior. Usage is only loosely implied by the name.

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