Get a document and its parsed text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description isn't burdened with safety disclosure. It adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the returned fields (status, page count, parsed text with tables as markdown) and that calls are free, which matters for an agent deciding between paid siblings like extract.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the optional mode and the cost note. No filler, no redundancy.

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 does the work of naming the return fields, and it covers the optional parameter's effect and cost. The main gap is behavioral edge cases such as what 'processing status' returns when parsing is incomplete, which an agent would need to handle responses.

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?

include_layout is already documented in the schema; the description restates it with the added detail of 'per-page sections with bounding boxes', which is a modest gain. document_id is undocumented in both schema and description, so half the parameters carry no semantic help.

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: fetch a document's processing status, page count and parsed text, plus an optional layout mode. It's clearly the retrieval counterpart to upload_document/extract, though it never names those siblings to sharpen the distinction.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With siblings like extract and convert_to_excel in the same namespace, the description leaves the agent to infer that this is the plain-text/status read path rather than the extraction or conversion path.

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