get_ocr_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It thoroughly documents the return payload, enumerates possible statuses, clarifies that result appears only when status is done, and defines the error response for nonexistent tasks. It does not explicitly state that the call has no side effects, but a status query is inherently read-only and the description covers key edge cases.

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 compact and well-organized: a one-line purpose, a concise return contract, and a usage recommendation. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value without 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?

For a status-polling tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is quite complete: it covers return shape, statuses, error behavior, and polling cadence. Minor omissions include not explicitly linking task_id to start_pdf_ocr and not stating what to do after completion, but these are inferable from sibling tools.

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 schema has one parameter, task_id, with 0% description coverage. The description mentions task_id in the return object but does not explain its origin (e.g., from start_pdf_ocr) or any format constraints. Since the parameter is self-explanatory by name, the gap is modest, but the description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 function with a specific verb and resource: '查询异步 OCR 任务进度' (query async OCR task progress). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_pdf_ocr and cancel_ocr_task, which are action-oriented, while this one is a status polling tool.

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 gives explicit usage context: it recommends polling every 1-5 minutes while a task is running and reporting progress to the user. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the polling guidance makes the intended usage clear enough.

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