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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations by enumerating the possible states (queued/processing with progress, done with download_page, failed with reason), which tells the agent what to expect from the response without an output schema.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the returned state and then enumerates outcomes. It is not bloated, though the noun-phrase construction could be slightly clearer as an action statement.

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 read-only status tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description supplies the key behavioral information an agent needs: possible states and what each represents. Minor gaps remain around polling cadence or invalid-id behavior, but the core is complete.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the id parameter as the value returned by convert_image or convert_document. The description's phrase 'started with this key' reinforces that meaning but does not add syntax, format, or validation details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource (a conversion started with a key) and what is returned (its state), which clearly separates it from the sibling convert_* tools that initiate work. It lacks an explicit action verb such as 'retrieve' or 'poll,' but the noun phrase is specific enough for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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?

Usage is implied: call this after starting a conversion with convert_image or convert_document to check status. The description does not explicitly say when to use this versus other tools or when not to use it, though the mention of 'started with this key' and the download_page outcome gives contextual guidance.

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