lm_download_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral caveat about job submission vs. completion, but says nothing about polling cadence, terminal states, or what happens for an invalid job_id.

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?

A single compact sentence with the key concept front-loaded ('check actual download progress'). No padding, though the semicolon clause is a caveat rather than an actionable instruction.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description would need to convey what a status response looks like (in-progress vs. complete vs. failed) — it only gestures at completion. For a simple single-parameter poll tool with annotations covering safety, this is minimally adequate but not complete.

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?

There is exactly one parameter (job_id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden of explaining it — and it says nothing about where the job_id comes from or its format. Since the description ignores the sole parameter entirely, it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 specific verb+resource (check download progress) and implicitly distinguishes from the lm_download sibling by warning that a submitted job is not a completed download. It never names the sibling tool explicitly, so sibling differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 clause 'a submitted job is not a completed download' implies this tool is used after lm_download to poll for completion, but it never says when to call it, how often, or which alternative to use. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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