Get document

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

The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining that extraction runs in the background and that polling is needed when status is 'processing'. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise with three sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating what the tool does, when to use it, and the asynchronous behavior. No unnecessary words.

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 absence of an output schema, the description covers the key aspects (returned fields, polling behavior). It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but for this simple tool it is mostly complete.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Fetch' and explicitly mentions the resource 'uploaded document including its extracted statement lines' with match_status. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like upload_document and list_documents.

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 advises using this tool after upload_document to check extraction status and reconciliation results, and to poll if status is 'processing'. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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