Verify Forms files

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, but the description adds real context beyond them: the operation is a read performed via POST (nothing mutated), and it enumerates the possible check_status values (check, ready, infected, error, deleted). With no output schema, that status enumeration is the only disclosure of return semantics.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences: purpose first, then the POST-read clarification, then the payload limitation. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

For a two-parameter verification tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value semantics via the status enum and sets expectations about what the tool cannot do. An agent has everything needed to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents survey_id and the path/url file references. The description adds no syntax or format guidance beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 precise verb (verify/check) and resource (already-uploaded form-filling files) with the specific aspects checked: upload/scan status and download access. Clearly separable from sibling forms_files_delete, which removes rather than inspects the same files.

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?

Scopes usage to already-uploaded files and warns that uploading/downloading the payloads themselves are CLI/SDK-only, which steers the agent away from trying to do those via this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer this over, say, forms_filling_get.

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