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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description discloses the return shape: a signed download URL valid for one hour once done, plus projectId, editorUrl and pageCount. It also explains the polling lifecycle with queued and rendering states, which is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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?

The description is three tight sentences with no wasted text. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds return details and polling guidance in a logical order.

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 successfully explains the returned fields, URL expiry and status states. It is nearly complete, but the missing jobId parameter explanation leaves a small gap given the schema's 0% coverage.

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?

The input schema has zero description coverage for the sole parameter, jobId, and the description does not explicitly explain that jobId is the identifier returned by create_ebook or export_ebook. It implies the job originates from those tools but leaves the parameter meaning and format largely undocumented.

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 and resource: check the status of a PDF export. It also ties the tool to its originating siblings, create_ebook and export_ebook, so an agent can distinguish it from the other ebook tools without opening the schema.

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?

It gives clear usage context: call this after an export has been started, poll every few seconds while status is queued or rendering, and do not announce readiness before done. It does not name an explicit alternative or when-not-to-use case, so it falls short of the top score.

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