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

Annotations only declare read-only/non-destructive/open-world, so the description carries the real behavioral burden and does so richly: it defines polling semantics, the exact success/failure criteria, and the meaning of a non-empty failed_jobs. That is substantive context an agent cannot get from 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?

Front-loads the returned fields, then the polling/completion rule, then the endpoint path. Dense but every clause is functional; the trailing raw endpoint is minor but harmless extra detail.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately covers what the response contains and how to interpret it (flags, timestamps, failed_jobs) plus the decision rule for completion. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 100%, so both parameters (parser_id, document_id) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format, pattern, or sourcing detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: retrieving processing status of one document, and enumerates the exact fields returned (importing/processing flags, page count, timestamps, webhook dispatch, failed jobs). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like docparser_get_document_results and docparser_list_document_results.

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?

Gives explicit usage context: "Poll this after a fetch/upload" plus the precise completion condition (both in-progress flags false, processed_at set, failed_jobs empty) and the failure condition. It only implies rather than names the follow-up sibling ("then read the results" = get_document_results), so routing to alternatives is left to inference.

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