Download Status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden alone; it does add real value by disclosing the full state machine (queued, downloading, converting, done, failed, cancelled), which tells the agent what to expect back. However, it never states that this is a side-effect-free read, nor whether terminal states (done/failed/cancelled) mean polling should stop.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the enumerable states are appended compactly rather than buried in a list of bullets. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values, and the state enumeration covers the key behavioral question. But the provenance of the required job_id and the polling/terminal-state guidance an agent needs to use this correctly are both missing.

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% for the single required parameter, and the description never mentions 'job_id' or explains where to obtain one (presumably from download_programme). The only parameter the tool requires is completely undocumented in prose and schema alike.

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 names the resource ('a download job') and what it reports ('progress'), and enumerating the possible states makes the intent unambiguous. It is distinguishable from list_downloads and cancel_download, though it never uses an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus list_downloads (which presumably shows all jobs) or subscribe_events (which may push state changes). The agent must infer that this is the per-job polling endpoint purely from the name and the singular 'job_id'.

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