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

The annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful behavioral detail by explaining that omitting jobId lists the user's still-running uploads, which is not captured by the annotations or schema. It does not describe the return format or pagination, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 two efficient sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the operational branch for jobId.

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 simple status-check tool with one optional parameter and rich safety annotations, the description covers the essential invocation behavior. It does not explain what progress details are returned, but no output schema exists and the tool's contract is otherwise clear.

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 the jobId parameter is already documented. The description adds important semantics beyond the schema by explaining what happens when jobId is omitted: the tool lists the user's running uploads. That is meaningful optional-parameter behavior, though it does not elaborate on jobId formats or limits.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: check the progress of an upload job. It names the originating tools upload_document and upload_document_from_url, making the purpose clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as get_import_status or get_quiz_job.

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 clearly states the usage context: checking an upload started by one of the two upload tools. It also explains the optional-parameter branch: pass jobId for a specific job or omit it to list the user's running uploads. It does not state explicit exclusions or alternative tools, so it falls just short of a 5.

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