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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly does not. It does not disclose whether the call blocks until completion, what happens if the job is incomplete, failed, or expired, or any permission/rate-limit constraints.

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?

One short sentence with no padding, and the sibling reference is front-loaded. It is a dependent noun phrase rather than a full statement, which slightly weakens structure and front-loading of the action.

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 async-job result tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what is returned (status vs. extracted content) and how completion is signaled. Neither is covered, leaving the agent unable to predict the response or decide whether to poll.

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% for the single job_id parameter, and the schema only gives a title with no type semantics beyond 'string'. The description partially compensates by stating the id comes from extract_document and has the form 'exj_...', which is genuinely useful format guidance, but nothing is said about invalid-id behavior.

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 identifies the resource as the result of a long-document extraction job and ties it to the sibling extract_document, which aids differentiation. However, it is written as a noun fragment rather than a verb+resource statement, so what the tool actually does (fetch/retrieve) is only inferable from the tool name.

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 clause 'that extract_document left running' implies the usage context: call this after extract_document for asynchronous jobs. There is no explicit guidance on when not to call it, whether to poll repeatedly, or what to do if the job is still running or has failed.

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