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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive, so the safety bar is low. The description adds real value beyond them: the response shape varies by job lifecycle state (progress while queued/running, finished body once done, records for batches). It does not mention that output_path writes a file to disk, which is a minor undisclosed side effect.

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 that identifies the resource first, then the two state-dependent fields. Every clause carries information; there is no filler.

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 must describe return values, and it does so for the three main cases (finished body, progress, records). It leaves out error/failure states (e.g., what a failed job returns), which is the only notable gap for a polling tool.

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%, so both parameters are already documented at the schema level, which sets the baseline at 3. The description only echoes that job_id comes from an async edit or a batch, adding marginal context and nothing about output_path semantics.

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?

Names a precise resource (the result of an async edit or batch) keyed by job_id, and explicitly relates it to pdf_edit and pdf_batch, so an agent can tell it is the retrieval/polling counterpart rather than a new operation. The verb 'result' is implicit rather than stated, keeping it short of a 5.

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 clear context: this is what you call with a job_id that an async edit or batch returned, and the payload differs by state (progress while queued/running, records for a batch). It offers no explicit exclusions, but no sibling competes for this job, so the guidance is functionally complete.

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