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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds a meaningful behavioral detail: the download link is only available 'if finished'. This implies the job may still be in progress. It doesn't describe exact status values, but for a simple read-only call this is sufficient context beyond the annotations.

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 communicates both the primary purpose and the conditional detail about the download link. No filler, no repetition.

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 well-documented parameter, the description is complete. It states what is returned (status, and download link when finished) and the annotations cover the safety profile. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently sets expectations.

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 parameter description already explains that job_id is returned by convert. The tool description adds no new semantic detail about the parameter itself, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Get'), a concrete resource ('status of a conversion job'), and an additional outcome ('download link if finished'). This distinguishes it from siblings like convert, create_upload, list_formats, and list_options, which serve different purposes.

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 context is clear: this is the polling/status-check tool for an async conversion job. It doesn't explicitly name when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives, but the schema's mention that job_id comes from convert makes the intended workflow evident. No exclusions or conflicting usage guidance are present.

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