Read extraction result

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuine value beyond them: the pending-state return, the fact that polling is free, and the safety instruction to treat marketplace text as untrusted and preserve warnings. It stops short of describing the result payload structure.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and state behavior, each contributing distinct information (state, cost, safety). Slightly staccato but no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description does explain the pending return state and the untrusted-data caveat, covering the main risks of consumption. It could go further on what a completed result contains, but an agent has enough to call and interpret it.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100% (jobId documented as a customer-owned public UUID), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about jobId beyond the schema, which is acceptable at this coverage level but not enriching.

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 ('Read a customer-owned extraction result') plus the key stateful behavior ('Returns pending while the job runs'). It does not differentiate itself from the sibling amz_get_scrape, leaving the agent to infer which read to call.

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 credit note ('Result polling does not consume additional credits') implies this tool is meant to be polled repeatedly, which is useful usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus amz_get_scrape, and no stated preconditions (e.g., job must be created first).

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