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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safe-read profile, and the description adds valuable detail on the actual state machine (queued | working | completed | failed) plus what becomes available on completion (download_url / download_id / number_of_pages). Missing only polling/rate-limit guidance, but the added behavioral context is real.

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?

Two tight sentences: the purpose plus the trigger condition come first, then the return payload and the underlying endpoint. 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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of describing returns and does it, enumerating the possible status values and the completion fields. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 the single status_id parameter's schema description ('returned by docraptor_create_document when async:true') duplicates what the prose says. With the schema carrying the full load, the 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?

States a specific verb (Check the status) and resource (asynchronous document), and explicitly scopes it to documents created by docraptor_create_document with async:true, which cleanly separates it from the sibling create/list tools.

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 condition for use is clear: it is the follow-up call for an async creation, and the {async:true} reference pins down exactly which create path produces a usable status_id. It does not name an explicit when-not-to-use or alternative, but the context is unambiguous.

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