Get an extraction result

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true), so the description just needs to add context: it discloses the not-found failure mode for in-progress extractions and notes the call is free, both of which are actionable beyond the structured data. It does not describe the shape of the returned JSON or pagination, but with no output schema that gap is modest.

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, zero padding, and the operational precondition (wait for the job) is surfaced immediately after the purpose. Every clause carries information the agent can act on.

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 simple read tool with three params and no output schema, the description plus schema cover what an agent needs to call it correctly. The only meaningful omission is a hint about the returned JSON structure and what include_field_metadata actually changes in the response.

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 67% and the description adds essentially no parameter meaning — it never explains standardization_id, save_to, or when to set include_field_metadata. The schema already documents the two optional parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies, but the description does nothing to compensate for the undocumented required id.

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?

"Fetch the extracted JSON of a finished standardization" gives a specific verb and resource, and the word "finished" scopes it to completed runs, which separates it from job-polling siblings like get_job or wait_for_jobs. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 description gives a clear negative condition ('while the extraction is still running this answers not found') and redirects the agent to wait on the job first, which is the right behavioral routing. It does not name the specific sibling to use (get_job vs wait_for_jobs), leaving that inference to the agent.

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