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

Annotations already declare this is a safe, non-destructive, closed read. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the need to poll, the is_processing flag semantics, and the dependency between processing and queue usability. It omits error behavior (e.g., unknown UUID) but the safety profile is already covered.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by the operational polling guidance, then a compact REST mapping. Every sentence carries information an agent can act on; no 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?

For a single-parameter read with no output schema, the description conveys the key returned field (processing state) and the workflow dependency. Only failure/not-found handling is left implicit, which is a minor gap for a low-complexity tool.

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% with a single 'media' parameter already documented as the storage UUID, so the baseline is 3. The description restates 'by UUID' without adding format, constraint, or lookup guidance beyond the schema.

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 ('Get one media file by UUID') and includes the scope detail that it returns processing state. This distinguishes it cleanly from list_media (many) and get_stream (different resource) without needing to name them.

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?

Gives a concrete usage trigger and stopping condition: poll after an upload until is_processing is false, because the file is unusable in queues until processed. It does not name an alternative tool for the pre-upload or bulk case, so it falls just short of explicit when-not guidance.

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