Get conversion

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

The description adds context beyond annotations by explaining output modes (inline JSON, local file save over stdio, HTTP download instructions). However, it does not disclose potential side effects or whether repeated polling affects the conversion state. The annotations (readOnlyHint: false, openWorldHint: true) signal uncertainty, but the description does not fully address behavioral traits like idempotency or changes to the conversion state.

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 four sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the purpose, the next two explain behavior in different modes, and the last gives a usage hint. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded.

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?

Given the complexity (polling tool with output schema and sibling tools), the description covers output modes and when to use it, but it lacks guidance on polling frequency, lifecycle (one-time or repeatable), and failure handling. The existence of an output schema reduces the burden for return values, but more context on the polling workflow would improve completeness.

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 each parameter has a clear description in the schema (job_id, output_path, result_type). The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. With full coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it gets the current state of one MainBook conversion, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one MainBook conversion'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings: convert_bank_statement is the preceding step, list_conversions lists all conversions, and get_balance is unrelated.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use this after convert_bank_statement times out.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives beyond the sibling set, the context is clear enough for selection.

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