get_track_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly implies a read-only check and tells the caller what outcome is reported, but it does not disclose polling/blocking behavior, eventual-consistency semantics, error cases, or whether calling it has side effects beyond implication.

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?

One tightly worded sentence front-loads the action and resource, then uses a dash to add the precise usage context. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with a single required parameter that is fully schema-documented, plus an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: when to call it, what it operates on, and what question it answers. Nothing essential is missing.

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 100%: the schema already explains that track_id is the tracking ID returned by the ingestion tools. The description adds workflow context but no new parameter-level detail such as format, length, or examples, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('processing status of the document(s) associated with a track_id'), and embeds the workflow context ('after insert_text/insert_texts/upload_file') so an agent can tell this tool apart from other status-oriented siblings like get_pipeline_status or get_scan_status.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: after insert_text/insert_texts/upload_file, and what question it answers ('whether indexing finished, and whether it succeeded'). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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