get_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It communicates a read-only 'check' actionainer, lists the full set of possible statuses, and clarifies that it is not the tool for retrieving structure or page content. Minor gap: it does not explicitly state that the operation has no side effects.

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 front-loaded sentence: purpose first, followed by the status enumeration and contextual usage guidance. No filler words; code formatting improves readability and scannability.

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?

The combination of description and schema gives the agent enough to call the tool correctly: parameters, status values, and sequencing relative to sibling tools. With no output schema, the main omission is what specific fields 'metadata' includes and how to react to 'failed', but those are secondary for basic invocation.

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 67%: doc_name and wait_for_completion have detailed schema descriptions, and folder_id is partially explained within doc_name's description. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so it does not compensate beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource: 'Check a document's processing status and metadata.' It also enumerates the possible status values, and distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning itself as the gate before get_document_structure or get_page_content.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to call this tool before get_document_structure() or get_page_content() to confirm the document is ready. It names the alternatives and the condition that selects this tool, leaving no ambiguity about when it should be used.

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