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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description's added details about wait-budget expiry, repeated calls to keep waiting, and following llmContext guidance provide genuine extra value. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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, with four sentences that each carry distinct information: purpose, wait behavior, output slicing, and result guidance. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 an 8-parameter tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the key behaviors an agent needs: state retrieval, waiting, slicing, and follow-up guidance. A minor gap is that it does not explicitly differentiate from get_parse_batch, but the output schema and annotations fill most of the remaining context.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining the wait semantics, tying runId to parse_document/list_parse_runs, and referencing pageRange/maxChars/rawBlocks output slicing as in parse_document, which enriches parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 and resource: 'Get the state and output of a parse run (parse group).' It goes beyond a generic label by specifying the two typical goals — resuming a running run or inspecting a failed one — which makes the tool's purpose clear and distinct from listing or batch operations.

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 clear usage context: runId comes from parse_document or list_parse_runs, wait: true blocks until terminal or budget expiry, and output slicing works as in parse_document. It does not explicitly name alternatives like get_parse_batch or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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