tosea_get_document_parse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It reveals that the tool does not expose presentation details, but it does not state that the operation is read-only, idempotent, or specify error scenarios. For a status-checking tool, lacking clarity on side effects (likely none) and response structure (just status?) leaves gaps.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. It is to the point, though it could be slightly improved by separating the action and the constraint for better readability. Minor loss due to vagueness.

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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal. It lacks information on the returned status format, possible values, and how it relates to siblings like tosea_wait_for_job or tosea_get_document_parse_result. An agent needs more completeness to use it correctly alongside these tools.

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%, putting the burden on the description. The description does not explain the parameter 'document_parse_id' beyond implying it identifies a parse job. No constraints, format details, or examples are given. Since it's a single UUID, some clarity is inherent, but the description adds no value over the schema.

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 action ('Fetch parse job status') and the resource ('for a document_parse_id'). It adds a distinguishing constraint ('without exposing presentation details') that differentiates it from sibling tools like tosea_get_document_parse_result. However, it could be more explicit that it returns status only, not the full parsed document.

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 implies usage for checking job status without presentation details, making it an alternative to tosea_get_document_parse_result. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or direct reference to siblings. The agent must infer from context.

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