Get Processing Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the exact status lifecycle (CREATED/WAITING/RUNNING/FINISHED/FAILED) and the two-day result retention window, which affects polling strategy.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the enum/retention details following. Nothing to trim.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry return-value information, and it does cover the two things an agent needs: the status enum and the recognised-text payload plus its retention. It stops short of describing the full response shape (e.g. where the text sits), leaving a minor gap.

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% — processId is documented as 'Process ID returned when the image was submitted', including its numeric bound. The description adds nothing parameter-level, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Get the status of a Processing API job') and scopes it further by naming the enumerated status values and the recognised-text payload, which distinguishes it from siblings like transkribus_upload_get_status and transkribus_job_get.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool is a poll endpoint, and the two-day retention note hints at a time window, but the description never says to call it after submitting an image or names an alternative for a different job kind. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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