Wait for Task Extraction

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint annotations by disclosing terminal-state semantics (completed and partially_completed succeed; failed and insufficient_credits error), the warning that partial completion is not success for every document, and that SDK backoff/retries mean the poll window is not a strict wall-clock deadline.

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?

Front-loads the return contract and the success/failure states, then layers downstream routing, polling caveats and the review exclusion. Every sentence carries operational information; none is padding.

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?

Covers outcome semantics, error modes, retry-on-timeout behavior, downstream tooling and an explicit non-capability, and it need not explain return values since an output schema exists. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret this call correctly.

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 already documents task_id, poll_interval and max_poll_attempts at 75% coverage, and the description largely restates the defaults (2s, 3 attempts). It does add genuine meaning by explaining that backoff makes the effective delay larger than poll_interval, but the api_url parameter is left entirely unexplained.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Wait for an existing extraction task_id') and immediately scopes the return value ('returns status and document_ids, not extracted data'), which separates it from get_task_results, fetch_document_result and download_results without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent downstream ('Use fetch_document_result or download_results with the returned document IDs'), handles the timeout case ('call again with the same task_id rather than uploading again'), and states an exclusion ('does not approve documents awaiting human review'). This is when/when-not/alternatives guidance in full.

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