read_parse_result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint=false/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: results are cached rather than re-fetched, no upload or resubmit occurs, and the read is bounded with offset-based continuation. It still says nothing about what happens if the job is incomplete or the cache is expired.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and resource, then adds the boundaries and the continuation rule. Dense but every clause earns its place; no filler.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description does tell the agent the shape of the returned payload (tables, character detail, page metadata) and how to page through it. It omits any mention of the required job_id's meaning and any failure/empty-cache behavior, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. '有界读取' and '按next_offset续接' do convey the limit/offset paging semantics and that next_offset is the continuation token, but job_id (the single required parameter) is left unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: a bounded read of the already-cached full xParse raw JSON, including tables, character detail and page metadata. The clause '不上传或重提' (does not upload or resubmit) implicitly separates it from parse_document/retry_parse, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Implies the correct context (consuming results already produced by an xParse job) and gives a continuation rule via next_offset. It never states when to prefer this over get_parse_job or read_document, nor any preconditions such as 'only after job completion', leaving the agent to infer.

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