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

The description explains the otherwise confusing readOnlyHint=false annotation: a ready resume is 'adopted once into this account', a real state-changing side effect, and 'once' is consistent with idempotentHint=true. It also tells the agent what to do on error. It omits auth requirements and any disclosure of what the adoption means for the source upload.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the non-obvious side effect and the error remedy. Slightly telegraphic phrasing ('Poll resume processing') costs a bit of clarity but nothing is wasted.

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?

Return values are covered by the output schema and the adoption side effect is disclosed, which is the important part. But for a tool whose only input is an opaque id, the absence of any statement about what that id is or what states can be polled leaves a real gap.

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 0% and the single required parameter 'id' has no description in the schema. The description never mentions the parameter at all, so an agent must guess that the pattern-constrained 32-hex string is the resume/upload identifier from a prior upload_resume call.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: polling resume processing status for an uploaded resume. It is distinguishable from upload_resume, but it never explicitly names the sibling or says the input identifies which resume, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

'Poll resume processing' implies repeated calls until ready, and 'Errors require a new upload' routes the agent back to upload_resume on failure. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of how long or how often to poll, and no other alternatives named.

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