Check a parse

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real value by disclosing the return payload (status, current phase, percentage, error on failure) and the accepted id forms. It does not mention whether completed/failed are terminal or how often to poll, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler; the action and its linkage to start_parse come first, followed by the returned fields. Every clause carries information an agent needs to call and interpret the tool.

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 single-parameter, read-only polling tool with no output schema, the description adequately encodes the response shape and id semantics. The only shortfall is operational guidance on polling behavior and terminal states, which is minor given the annotations cover the safety profile.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds lifecycle meaning the schema does not: a completed parse reports a canonical graphId that can then be passed back in. That clarifies why two identifier forms are accepted, beyond the schema's bare statement that 'the id start_parse returned also works'.

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 ('Report the progress of a parse') and explicitly scopes it to parses started with start_parse, which cleanly separates it from the sibling start_parse. It even enumerates the status values, so an agent knows exactly what this returns.

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?

Names the pairing explicitly ('a parse started with start_parse') and tells the agent which identifier form to supply, which effectively implies when to call it (after a parse is initiated). It stops short of stating polling cadence or what to do when status is terminal, so it is clear context but not full when/when-not guidance.

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