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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it returns status and progressIndicator, and when Completed, redirectUrl points to a /v2/files/{id} result. This tells the agent what to expect and how to proceed, which is exactly the kind of detail annotations do not provide.

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 compact and front-loaded: it starts with the core action, gives the async-job example, explains the return fields and completion behavior, and ends with the endpoint reference. Every sentence adds useful 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 compensates by naming the key return fields (status, progressIndicator, redirectUrl) and explaining how to consume redirectUrl. It also links the tool to the export and file-retrieval workflows, giving enough context to call it correctly.

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%, and the single queue_id parameter is already documented as a GUID in the schema. The description does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema; it only restates the /v2/queue/{id} endpoint shape. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 a queued job') and identifies the originating operation ('the PDF export started by goformz_export_form_pdf'), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without reading the schema. It also maps the next step to goformz_get_file when the job completes.

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 a clear usage context: checking an async job such as a PDF export, and directs the agent to goformz_get_file when the job is Completed. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives for checking job status, but the workflow is clear.

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