check_status

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the polling behavior, status interpretations, and that it returns a download link. It does not mention rate limits or resource consumption, but for a read-only polling tool this is sufficient.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose, second explains status values and actions. No redundancy, every word contributes.

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?

Given the simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description completely covers polling behavior, status values, and appropriate follow-up actions, making it fully self-contained.

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 100% and the schema description for record_id already specifies it comes from generate_document or format_from_linkedin. The tool description adds no extra parameter info, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'check' and the resource 'generated document', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like generate_document and format_from_linkedin which are for generation, not status polling.

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 description explains the three possible statuses and how to react: poll for 'Processing', share URL for 'Formatted', and treat 'Failed' accordingly. It implies usage after generation tools via the parameter description, but doesn't explicitly state when to call or list alternatives.

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