Get async upload status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds the specific polling behavior and the expected terminal states, which goes beyond the annotations. There is no contradiction; it simply adds useful behavioral context about how status evolves.

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 two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and contains zero fluff. The polling condition is placed second, efficiently guiding usage. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has an output schema that presumably defines the `status` field, so the description does not need to repeat return structure. It gives the essential polling loop and terminal conditions. It does not mention error handling or what to do if the upload never reaches a terminal state, but for a single-parameter read-poll tool this is adequate.

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 0% (the property has no description), so the tool description must compensate. It mentions `request_id` by name but adds little semantics: it only says 'by `request_id`', implying it is an identifier from an async upload but does not explain its format, origin, or how to obtain it. This is minimal value beyond the raw 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Check the status of an async upload' and identifies the required identifier `request_id`. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like `get_job_status` or `get_media_upload` by focusing on async upload status, though it doesn't name alternatives. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides clear usage guidance: 'Poll this until `status` is "success" or "failed".' This tells the agent exactly when to call it and how to interpret the result iteratively. It does not explicitly mention when to avoid it or alternative tools, but the polling instruction is strong contextual guidance.

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