Check PDF Generation Status

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

Annotations already provide safety hints (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true). The description adds useful behavioral context: supported zones, required parameters, and the fact that it returns a JSON object with file contents or download URL. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

The description is a single paragraph of 5-6 sentences, front-loading the purpose and including necessary details. It is reasonably concise but could be slightly trimmed without losing essential information.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return type. It covers required parameters, supported zones, and endpoint info. For a status-checking tool, this provides sufficient context for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. Description adds minor context by labeling required parameters as 'URL path parameters' and mentioning them. For page and per_page, no additional meaning beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check the status of a PDF document generation for a prime contract.' It specifies the endpoint and return type, and distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on Commitments and mentioning supported zones.

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 indicates when to use the tool ('to retrieve a downloadable file or export URL for Commitments') and includes a constraint (supported only in US01 & US02 zones). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives among sibling versions.

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