Get upload status

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, so the description is free to add richer behavior — a full status state machine (URL_ISSUED through EXPIRED), the meaning of the error field on REJECTED, and the sizeBytes/rowCount verification step. These go well beyond what the annotations provide.

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-loads the core action and parameter source, then layers the status vocabulary, scope boundaries, and error handling. Every sentence carries actionable content; the enum list is dense but necessary.

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?

An output schema exists so return shape needs no explanation, yet the description still adds the useful sizeBytes/rowCount confirmation step. Scope, prerequisites, states, and failure paths are all covered for a polling tool of this complexity.

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 there is one parameter, so the description must carry it — and it does, tying upload_request_id to its origin in start_upload. It stops short of format/length details, but the key semantic (where the id comes from) is supplied.

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 ('Poll an upload session by the upload_request_id') and explicitly homes it in the start_upload workflow. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming start_upload as the source of the id and scope-limiting which channels report here (gateway PUT, host file parameter, upload_from_url).

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 explicit when-to-use ('complete_upload only accepts READY — poll here first'), when-not ('files uploaded through the web model builder are not visible here... find them with list_datasets'), and failure handling ('on REJECTED... start a new upload rather than retrying this session'). This is textbook routing guidance.

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