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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: 'Does not process a document; normally not billed' — billing and processing semantics an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema. It still omits return shape and pagination behavior.

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 short sentences with zero filler, front-loading what the tool returns before the usage hint and the billing note. Every clause earns its place.

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 usefully summarizes the return content (status changes and error messages) and covers billing behavior, which is the main non-obvious risk for this read-only call. Return format and pagination details remain unstated, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 limit, offset, and job_id are already fully documented in the schema, and the description adds no syntax, format, or default detail beyond it. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema carries all parameter meaning.

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 names a specific resource and content type ('Status changes and error messages of an async job') and pins the endpoint GET /document_capturing/v1/async/{job_id}/logs, so an agent knows it retrieves logs rather than job status or results. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings get_async_job or get_async_job_result, leaving the boundary between 'logs' and 'job status' to inference.

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 a clear selection condition: 'to debug a failed one.' This tells the agent when this tool is the right pick over the general job/result tools. It stops short of naming alternatives explicitly or stating when-not to use it, so it's clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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