tosea_get_document_parse_result

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

No annotations exist, so the description must provide behavioral context. It reveals the output contents (Markdown, payloads, image URLs) and the condition of a completed job, but does not mention error handling, what happens if the job is not completed, or side effects (e.g., read-only nature).

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 a single sentence of 17 words, front-loading the core action and outputs. No extraneous information; every word earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic 'what' but lacks lifecycle context: it assumes the user knows to first create a document parse job, check status, and wait. The presence of sibling tools mitigates this slightly, but the description itself misses preconditions and error states.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only names the parameter 'document_parse_id' without explaining its origin or relation to other tools (e.g., it comes from tosea_create_document_parse). The UUID format is noted but not elaborated.

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 verb 'Fetch' and the specific resources: 'final Markdown, per-file parse payloads, and extracted image URLs'. It uniquely identifies the tool's role among siblings like tosea_get_document_parse and tosea_wait_for_document_parse, which handle status and waiting.

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 use for completed jobs via the word 'completed', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like tosea_get_document_parse (which likely provides status) or prerequisites like creating a parse first. No exclusion guidance is given.

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