scf_get_document_generation_status

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with '(read — viewer role)'. It adds useful behavioral detail beyond the annotation by documenting the idle sentinel: Returns {status: 'idle'} when nothing is running, and signals that it reflects in-flight work.

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?

Three short, purposeful sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, the viewer-role note is concise, and the return behavior and usage trigger are each stated in one sentence.

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 one-parameter polling tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the idle return value, the relationship to scf_generate_documents, and when to stop polling. It does not explicitly document the non-idle status values, but 'until it completes' sufficiently implies the polling contract.

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 already covers the single org_id parameter with a clear description and source instruction ('obtain from scf_list_organizations'). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter meaning, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 ('Poll'), a specific resource ('this organization's in-flight document generation'), and clarifies it is a read operation with viewer role. It clearly distinguishes itself from the large sibling set by focusing on document generation status, and even names its companion tool scf_generate_documents.

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 gives explicit context: call it after scf_generate_documents and keep polling until completion. It does not explicitly name alternative status tools or say when not to use it, but the 'Call after...' instruction is clear enough for correct usage.

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