alefba_document_status

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. States API endpoint and return shape, but does not disclose if operation is read-only or has side effects. 'Report' implies idempotent read, but not explicit.

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, bilingual, front-loaded with purpose. Some redundancy in Persian text, but efficient overall.

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?

Describes endpoint, parameters, and return mapping. Output schema exists, reducing need to detail return values. Missing error handling or rate limits, but adequate for async progress tracking.

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 has 0% description coverage, but description adds meaning: 'instance' is optional and defaults to default instance; 'document_urls' is for one or more documents. Explains behavior beyond schema types.

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?

Clear verb ('report') and resource ('processing progress for one or more documents'). Specifies return mapping for tracking async jobs, distinguishing it from sibling tools like alefba_read_document or alefba_download_pdf.

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?

Implicitly suggests use for tracking async jobs, but no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., alefba_read_document for final results). No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria.

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