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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, so the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it returns no file content or management key, and it warns that a pending status must not be treated as published. These are meaningful caveats not inferable from annotations.

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, each earning its place: the first defines the action and possible outcomes, the second states exclusions, and the third provides an important interpretive caveat. The key purpose is front-loaded.

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 read-only status tool, the description covers the essential outcomes, exclusions, and an important semantic warning. It does not mention error cases like unknown operation IDs, but the scope is simple enough that this is not a critical gap.

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?

There is only one parameter, operation_id, and the schema documents its format via a regex pattern. The description ties the parameter to 'a prepared operation' but does not explain how to obtain or validate an operation_id. This is adequate but minimal compensation for the absence of schema descriptions.

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 ('Read') and resource ('a prepared operation'), and enumerates the possible statuses: pending, complete, failed, or uncertain. This clearly differentiates it from sibling get_preview_status, which is scoped to previews rather than prepared operations.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for reading the status of a prepared operation, which tells an agent when to reach for it over the preview-status sibling. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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