document_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It describes what the tool reports and implies it is a read-only status check, but does not explicitly state that it does not modify data, nor does it mention error conditions (e.g., document not found, still processing). The output schema exists, so return format is covered, but behavioral details are partially implicit.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded: it leads with the core purpose, lists the report contents, and ends with a clear usage instruction. Both sentences earn their place, with no redundant wording or filler. It is well-structured for quick parsing by an agent.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It tells the agent what the tool reports and when to use it. It does not cover edge cases like partial results while processing, but that is a minor omission given the polling context and the availability of the output schema.

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 0%, meaning the description must compensate for parameter meaning. The description mentions 'one document' and the parameter is named 'document', making it clear that it expects an identifier for a document. However, it does not specify the format (e.g., ID vs. path) or how to obtain it, relying on shared context from sibling tools. It adds some meaning beyond the raw schema but leaves room for ambiguity.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it provides a processing state and quality report for a single document, enumerating specific details (completeness, page quality, equation count, re-extraction suggestions). This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like search_library or get_pages, which serve different functions. The phrase 'Poll this after import_pdf' also ties it to a specific workflow.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Poll this after import_pdf.' This tells the agent when to call it and implies it is for checking the result of an import operation. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear given the sibling tools and the specific trigger.

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