get_transfer_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a follow-up to fetch_file, but omits whether the result is terminal, whether polling is expected, or what states exist. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described here.

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 purpose and the originating tool. The trailing 'Available for: default.' is boilerplate that adds little, but overall there is no waste.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are adequately delegated. However, for a transfer-status poller the description says nothing about lifecycle states, polling cadence, or expiry, which an agent likely needs to use 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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter (transfer_id) has no inline description, so the description carries some burden. It implies the id originates from fetch_file, which is genuinely useful, but gives no format, type, or validity details.

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 ('Get progress/result of a transfer') and explicitly ties it to the fetch_file tool that creates transfers, which distinguishes it from generic getters among its siblings. It does not, however, differentiate itself from cancel_transfer or other transfer-related siblings explicitly.

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 'started by fetch_file' implies the usage context (poll after initiating a transfer), giving more than pure tautology. But there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus cancel_transfer, whether it must be polled repeatedly, or what to do once complete.

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