get_partner_data_upload

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The 'poll' hint usefully implies idempotent reads that return status information, but the description discloses no response format, status values, or rate/quota notes. It adds a bit of context beyond the tool name but stops short of actionable detail.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, with zero filler. The ID example and the polling guidance each earn their place; nothing extraneous is present.

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 simple get-by-ID tool this is largely sufficient, but since there is no output schema, the description needs to define what the poll response looks like — including terminal status states — to tell an agent when to stop polling. It also never addresses ad_account_id, leaving a potential correctness gap in ambiguous multi-account environments.

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 50%: upload_id is already fully documented in the schema with a pattern and description, and the tool description merely mirrors that ('by ID, e.g., pdu_...'). The optional ad_account_id has no schema description and the description adds nothing about its role, such as whether it scopes the query or is needed in multi-account contexts, so the agent receives no help for half the parameters.

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 (Get), a specific resource (Ads partner-data upload), and an identifier format (pdu_...). This clearly distinguishes it from its creation sibling create_partner_data_upload and from other get_* tools in the list, so an agent can select it correctly without opening schemas.

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 phrase 'Poll to check processing status' provides clear context: this is the status-checking companion to create_partner_data_upload, meant for repeated calls after upload creation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the polling guidance is sufficient to route an agent to the right tool.

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