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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the polling contract, terminal states, account scoping with rejection as not found, and the OAuth requirement, all of which go well beyond a bare 'fetch result' statement.

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 and front-loaded: purpose first, then polling instructions, guardrails, and auth constraints. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter polling tool, the description covers the core lifecycle, terminal states, account scoping, and authentication. However, with no output schema present, it leaves the structured result format and any failed-state error details unspecified, which is the main remaining gap.

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 100% and the schema already describes job_handle as the handle returned by convert_pdf. The description adds value by reinforcing the source of the handle, explaining that it is account-scoped, and noting that foreign handles are rejected as not found.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch the status and (once finished) the structured result of a job previously created by convert_pdf.' This clearly identifies the tool's role and distinguishes it from the sibling tools convert_pdf and get_balance.

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 description explicitly states when to use the tool: poll with the job_handle returned by convert_pdf until _meta.state is 'done' or 'failed'. It also gives a concrete when-not: do not call convert_pdf again while waiting, and warns that unauthenticated calls will fail until OAuth is connected.

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