doc2x_convert_export_wait

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well. It discloses that the tool waits for job completion, explains backward compatibility behavior (will submit once then wait if formula_mode is provided for non-in-process jobs), and implies polling behavior through the existence of poll_interval_ms and max_wait_ms parameters. However, it doesn't explicitly describe error handling or timeout behavior.

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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance and backward compatibility explanation. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient while remaining comprehensive.

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 complex tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does remarkably well. It covers purpose, workflow, key parameter relationships, and backward compatibility. The main gap is lack of explicit information about return values or error conditions, but given the tool's waiting nature and sibling tools available, this is somewhat mitigated.

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?

With only 25% schema description coverage, the description compensates significantly. It explains the relationship between uid and to parameters (from doc2x_convert_export_submit), clarifies the backward compatibility behavior with formula_mode, and mentions the expected workflow. While it doesn't detail all 8 parameters, it provides crucial context for the most important ones beyond what the sparse schema offers.

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 with a specific verb ('Wait for') and resource ('an export job'), distinguishing it from siblings like doc2x_convert_export_submit (which submits jobs) and doc2x_convert_export_result (which likely retrieves results). It explicitly identifies this as a waiting operation for export job completion.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Prefer calling doc2x_convert_export_submit first, then wait with uid+to' specifies the recommended workflow and alternative tool. It also explains backward compatibility behavior with formula_mode, giving clear context for when to use certain parameter combinations.

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