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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds real value beyond them: a personal-data warning (identity, salary slip, bank statement), the 'does not process a document; normally not billed' cost note, and the required 'done' status. Return-format details are absent, but the added context is meaningful.

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 short, front-loaded sentences plus the endpoint path; every sentence carries information (purpose, privacy warning, billing/scope). The trailing URL is somewhat redundant but harmless.

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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose, precondition, privacy, and billing. Minor gaps remain (behavior when the job is not done, output shape), but nothing critical for correct invocation 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% and the single job_id parameter is already documented in the schema as 'the job_id returned when the document was submitted.' The description adds no syntax or format 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+resource: it returns 'the captured data of a finished async job.' This is clearly distinct from status/logs siblings, though it does not name those siblings explicitly to route the agent away from them.

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 parenthetical '(status done)' implies a precondition that the job must be finished, but it does not tell the agent to check status via dochorizon_get_async_job first or what happens if the job is still running. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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