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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful behavioral facts — a download resource link is produced on completion, and the internal job identifier is not exposed — but says nothing about the pending/failed states an agent polling this tool must handle.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the completion behavior is stated immediately after the core purpose. Every clause 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?

For a two-parameter polling tool the description covers purpose and completion outcome, and an output schema exists so return-value details need not be repeated. The only real gap is the absence of guidance on intermediate states (pending, failed) and polling behavior.

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 50%: the `context` parameter is documented in the schema, but `jobId` carries only a minLength constraint. The description partially compensates by implying the jobId originates from convert_document, but it adds no format, lifetime, or validity detail beyond what the schema already implies.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Check a conversion') and anchors it to the sibling that creates the work: 'started by convert_document'. That is enough to separate it from the generic article tooling, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the other status-check siblings such as get_article_export_status or get_publish_status.

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?

Usage is implied by the prerequisite 'started by convert_document' — an agent can infer it should be called after starting a conversion. However, there is no guidance on polling cadence, when to stop, or what to do if the conversion fails, and no explicit when-not-to-use statement.

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