get_document

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the 45-second blocking window, the retry pattern, the fact that repeated fetches cost no pages, and that results land in the system temp directory when output_path is omitted — which explains why readOnlyHint=false despite being a 'get'. The status enumeration (including 'partial' from page exhaustion) further clarifies behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then status values, then timing/retry behavior, then the file-location caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information; the status list is compact and disambiguates a non-obvious value ('partial').

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 an output schema and full annotation set present, the description covers everything an agent needs: what each mode returns, how long it blocks, when to retry, the cost model, and where files are written.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3; the description earns credit beyond that by explaining the timing semantics of the output enum and the temp-directory default for output_path, which the schema itself does not state.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get a FastOCR document's status, and optionally its text or searchable PDF') and enumerates the three output modes, so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It never names or contrasts a sibling (list_documents, ocr_file), leaving that differentiation to the schema.

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 gives clear operational guidance: output='text'/'pdf' waits up to 45s and should be re-called if still processing, and re-fetching is free. It does not say when an agent should choose this over list_documents to check progress, so no explicit alternative routing.

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