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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the batch size limit (max 200 URLs), which is useful, but fails to describe other critical behaviors such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., parsed content format). For a batch processing tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

The description is extremely concise—a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality and a key constraint (max 200 URLs). It's front-loaded with the main action and has zero wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, batch processing) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the output format, error conditions, or behavioral nuances like processing order or concurrency. For a tool with no structured output guidance, more context is needed to help the agent use it effectively.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain URL formats, model trade-offs beyond schema hints, or format details). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: parsing multiple URLs in a batch with a maximum limit of 200. It specifies the verb ('parse') and resource ('URLs'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like mineru_parse (which might handle single URLs) or mineru_batch_status (which likely checks batch status). This makes it clear but not fully sibling-distinct.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a batch size limit but doesn't compare it to mineru_parse (for single URLs) or mineru_batch_status (for status checks), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent without clear usage context.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination support, which is a key behavioral trait, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the results contain. The description doesn't contradict any annotations, but it's insufficient for a mutation or complex read operation without more context.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a key behavioral note on pagination. Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it highly efficient and easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters and potential complexity in batch processing. It covers the basic purpose and pagination but misses details on return values, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. This is adequate as a minimum viable description but has clear gaps for effective agent use.

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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying that 'batch_id' comes from 'mineru_batch' and that pagination is supported via 'limit' and 'offset'. This matches the baseline score of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting, with minimal value added by the description.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'batch results', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'mineru_status' or 'mineru_batch', which might have overlapping functionality. The mention of 'pagination for large batches' adds useful context but doesn't fully distinguish it from potential alternatives.

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 description implies usage for retrieving results from batches, particularly large ones requiring pagination, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'mineru_status' or 'mineru_batch'. No alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from tool names alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns a 'task_id to check status', which indicates asynchronous processing and hints at a follow-up step, adding some context beyond basic parsing. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the parsing output entails (e.g., structured data, text extraction), leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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?

The description is extremely concise with just two sentences: 'Parse a document URL. Returns task_id to check status.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently conveys key behavioral information (asynchronous nature) without any wasted words, making it highly effective for its length.

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?

Given the complexity of 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It states the purpose and hints at asynchronous behavior, but lacks details on output format (e.g., what parsing yields), error cases, or integration with sibling tools. With no annotations and an output schema missing, it provides basic context but leaves significant gaps for a tool with multiple configuration options.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing detailed explanations for all 8 parameters (e.g., 'url' for document URL, 'model' with enum values and speed/accuracy trade-offs). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 clearly states the action ('Parse a document URL') and the resource ('document'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'mineru_batch' or 'mineru_status', which likely handle batch processing or status checking respectively, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions returning a 'task_id to check status', which implies asynchronous processing, but doesn't specify when to choose this over 'mineru_batch' for multiple documents or how it relates to 'mineru_status' for checking results. No explicit when/when-not or alternative usage is stated.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns a download URL when done, which adds some context about output behavior. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens during task processing (e.g., polling frequency, timeout). For a status-checking tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded with two clear sentences: 'Check task progress. Returns download URL when done.' Every word earns its place, with no wasted information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (status checking with two parameters) and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and outcome but lacks completeness. It doesn't cover error cases, return formats beyond the URL, or detailed behavioral traits. With no annotations and incomplete behavioral context, it's adequate but has clear gaps for effective agent use.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (task_id and format) with descriptions and enum values. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Check task progress' with the specific outcome 'Returns download URL when done.' It uses a specific verb ('Check') and identifies the resource ('task progress'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like mineru_batch_status, which might have similar functionality.

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 description implies usage context by mentioning 'Task ID from mineru_parse,' suggesting this tool follows mineru_parse. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like mineru_batch_status or mineru_batch, nor does it specify exclusions or prerequisites beyond the task_id parameter.

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