download_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does this well by describing the possible states (running, completed, failed, not_found), key progress fields, and the job lifecycle caveat that jobs exist only while the server runs. It stops short of stating explicit non-mutating behavior, but the status-check semantics make that reasonably clear.

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 compact yet information-dense. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and every subsequent sentence contributes meaningful detail about states, usage, alternatives, or lifecycle. No filler or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly takes on the job of explaining return shapes: running fields, completed outcomes, failed error, and not_found. For a simple one-parameter status tool, this covers everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly and interpret its result.

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?

The input schema only provides a bare 'job_id' property with no description (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so directly: 'Give the job_id from download_query' tells the agent exactly where the value comes from, and the not_found behavior clarifies what happens with an invalid id.

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?

Description opens with a specific action and resource: 'Check a background download started by download_query'. It clearly identifies this as a one-off status check, and the contrast with download_wait distinguishes it from the most similar sibling.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Use this for a single progress check.' It also names the alternative, download_wait, and the condition for choosing it: following a job to completion without tying up the conversation via a delegated watcher. It even explains how to obtain the required job_id from download_query.

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