Get Company Upload Status

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by explaining that polling until status is available is mandatory, detailing the status transition behavior when malware scanning is disabled, describing the error payload with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404), and confirming read-only behavior. This complements the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint 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 dense but every sentence adds valuable information. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and response contents, then flows into usage, transitions, and error handling. While slightly long, it remains efficient and well-organized.

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 that this is a simple GET with no output schema, the description is highly complete. It lists the response fields, explains mandatory polling, describes status transitions, covers error scenarios, and clarifies parameter defaults. An agent can invoke this tool correctly without additional context.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that company_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted and that upload_id must reference an existing parent record resolved via a list tool. It does not mention url_expires_in, but the schema already provides full details for that parameter.

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 a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('company-level unified upload status by upload ID'), and lists the exact response fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_unified_upload_status' and 'show_company_upload' by emphasizing the company-level scope and the need to know the specific upload ID.

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 explicitly identifies when to use the tool: to poll upload progress (e.g., receiving → scanning → available) or to inspect upload details when you already know the upload ID. It also advises resolving upload_id with the matching list tool first. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state a clear 'when not to use' scenario.

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