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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: status lifecycle (pending/running/completed/failed), that content and metadata are returned only once completed, and the authentication requirement via X-Api-Key header.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return behavior, followed by usage context and auth requirement. No filler.

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 two-parameter read-only getter without an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns (status and completed content/metadata), and how authentication works. An agent has enough to invoke 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains the job_id purpose and clarifies that api_key is sent as the X-Api-Key header, but it does not specify the job ID format or whether api_key is optional, leaving some ambiguity.

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 and resource ('Retrieve the result of an asynchronous extraction job by its job ID') and distinguishes it from sibling listing tools like 'jobs' by emphasizing retrieval of a single job's result. The status values further clarify what the tool returns.

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?

Explicitly says to use this tool to poll for results after submitting an extraction with processing_mode='async', giving a clear usage context. It stops short of naming exclusions or alternatives (e.g., 'not for listing all jobs'), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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