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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses async status handling (polling), the result structure upon completion, and API key requirement. It doesn't detail error cases or other statuses (e.g., failed), but for a read tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 main purpose, and includes useful operational details. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description thoroughly covers usage context, response format, and polling behavior. It even specifies the exact structured synthesis fields and per-model markdown summaries, making it self-sufficient.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, describing extraction_id as 'The extraction id returned by extract_url.' The description doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond the id, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool 'gets the status and results of a CoreWise extraction by id', which is a specific verb+resource+scope. This distinguishes it from siblings like extract_url (creation) and get_transcript (transcript retrieval).

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 explicitly advises polling every 20-30 seconds while processing and explains what to expect when completed. It also clarifies access scope (own extractions with API key, public community extractions). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the sibling tool purposes are sufficiently different that no confusion arises.

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