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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already covering safety, the description adds meaningful behavior: the four status values, the fact that a Processed response carries result_url, and the underlying V2 endpoint. It lacks details on polling frequency or failure recovery, but it materially exceeds 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then status values, then the follow-up action and endpoint. Every sentence contributes and there is 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?

For a read-only, single-parameter job status tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (statuses, result_url) and what to do next (mindee_get_inference). An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 parameter's origin is already documented by the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 and resource — checking processing status of an enqueued document by job id — with the status lifecycle. It routes to mindee_get_inference for results and the schema ties the job_id to mindee_extract_document, so it is clearly distinguishable from siblings.

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?

Implies usage when a job id exists (returned by extract timeout or enqueue) and explicitly directs the agent to mindee_get_inference once Processed. It does not state when *not* to use this tool or what to do in failure states, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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