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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by enumerating the status lifecycle values and the returned data dimensions (progress by files and bytes, current file, errors). It stops short of describing not-found or failed-lookup behavior.

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?

One compact sentence with the resource named first and the returned fields front-loaded after the colon. No filler, no repetition of the tool name, and the parenthetical status list is dense information rather than padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is responsible for describing return values, and it does so concretely with statuses, progress metrics, current file, and errors. Only the failure/not-found path and the source of the ID are left unstated, which is a minor gap for a simple read-only lookup.

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%, so the description carries the burden for the single parameter, and it never mentions transfer_id at all. The parameter name is self-explanatory as an identifier, which keeps this at a minimum-viable 3, but no guidance is given on obtaining or formatting the ID.

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 ('Детали одного переноса') and enumerates the exact contents (status, file/byte progress, current file, errors). It implicitly contrasts with list_transfers by scoping to a single transfer, but never names the sibling explicitly.

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 only implied: the singular 'одного переноса' suggests this is the per-item lookup versus a listing, but there is no explicit 'use this when…' or 'use list_transfers instead when…'. Nothing says where transfer_id comes from or what happens if the transfer does not exist.

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