get_upload_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It covers the main behavior by listing the possible statuses and webhook callback delivery status, making the operation's read-only nature and return content clear. It does not discuss error handling for invalid uploadIds, but this is not critical for a simple status check.

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?

One sentence places the action and resource first and packs the return-state information efficiently. There is no filler or repetition.

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 and no annotations, the description effectively explains the return values, which is the key information an agent needs. It could mention the next step of fetching extracted results after completion, but the current description is sufficient for calling the tool 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?

The schema already fully describes uploadId as 'The UUID of the upload' with 100% coverage. The description only restates that the status check uses uploadId, adding no additional semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Check') and a specific resource ('processing status of an uploaded document') and clearly enumerates the statuses returned. This distinguishes it from the sibling upload tools and get_extracted_results, which concern different stages of the 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 intended context is clear: check the status of an uploaded document using its uploadId, which fits between uploading and extracting results. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of fully explicit routing.

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