get_parse_job

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description usefully adds the 3-second polling throttle, that results are saved and merged across page batches, and that nothing is re-uploaded. It does not explain what 'readOnlyHint=false' writes or what triggers a state change, but given annotation coverage this is a reasonable addition.

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 clauses front-load the default behavior, then the poll alternative, then the merge/no-re-upload detail. No filler, though the clauses are dense and could be slightly clearer.

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 annotation clarity on the write side, the description covers mode selection, polling cadence, and merge semantics but omits what job_id identifies, what happens when a remote job is absent, and what the saved/merged result contains.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains poll=true versus the default local read well, but job_id is left entirely undocumented, so the description only compensates for half of the two parameters.

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 states that it reads a local parse job by default and queries existing remote jobs when poll=true, and that results are merged. However, it never plainly says it retrieves parse-job status/results, so the core resource is only implied; an agent must infer the purpose from the name and sibling tools like read_parse_result.

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?

It gives a concrete condition for poll=true (query an existing remote job) and a rate constraint (at least 3 seconds apart), which is implied rather than stated as guidance. It does not say when to use this versus retry_parse or read_parse_result, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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