Wait for document extraction

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false. The description adds behavioral details: polling mechanism, return of an MCP Task handle, polling tasks/get, exponential backoff, and timeout. No contradiction with annotations.

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, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core action and condition. Efficiently conveys the purpose and key behaviors.

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 polling tool with no output schema, the description covers the polling process, task handle, timeout, and backoff. It is sufficiently complete given the complexity and rich annotations. Could optionally detail what the final result contains, but not necessary.

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 33% with only timeoutMs having a description. The description explains sourcePid's role (status to reach) and mentions timeoutMs default (600000ms) and the polling condition. However, projectPid is not described. The description partially compensates for the low coverage but does not fully document all parameters.

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 tool polls until a condition (sourcePid reaches connected or error) or timeout. It specifies the action (poll air_list_documents), resource (document extraction status), and scope (per sourcePid). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like air_wait_for_assessment.

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 explains when to use it (to wait for extraction completion) and mentions using exponential backoff per async-jobs guidance. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, though the polling mechanism is well-described.

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