Fetch Document Result

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: it does not create an export job, does not write a local file, and does not block waiting for extraction to complete. It also names the returned fields, though with an output schema present that is somewhat redundant.

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?

Three sentences, each load-bearing: what it returns, where the ID comes from, and which siblings to use instead. The core capability and its non-blocking nature are front-loaded with no 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 single-resource read with an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: ID sourcing, sibling alternatives, async behavior, and no side effects. Annotations cover the safety dimension and the output schema covers the return shape, so nothing material is missing.

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 only 50%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the required parameter by clarifying the provenance of document_id (extraction results / get_task_results documents[].id) and warning against passing a task_id. It does not cover the undocumented api_url parameter, leaving one gap.

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 and resource ('Read structured JSON for one processed Suparse document_id') and immediately scopes it ('directly, without submitting an export job or saving a local file'). This distinguishes it from fetch_json_results and download_results without the agent needing to open sibling schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use routing ('Use fetch_json_results for a multi-document JSON export or download_results to save an export') and a prerequisite for the ID ('Get document IDs from extraction results or get_task_results (documents[].id); do not substitute a task_id'). It also states the exclusion 'Does not wait for extraction to finish,' covering the alternative of waiting tools.

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