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

The description discloses key behaviors beyond the annotations: it is a polling endpoint with a recommended poll interval, it returns status/result with special fields (retry_after_seconds, next_action, structured_result), and it references the job-starting tools. This adds valuable context that annotations alone do not convey, such as the expected polling loop and preference for structured_result.

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 yet information-dense. Each sentence adds value: purpose, polling guidance, response handling, and an example endpoint. It is well-structured, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler or repetition.

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 that this is a polling tool for async jobs, the description covers all essential aspects: what triggers the job, how to poll, what to do while pending, and how to handle completion. The existing output schema likely documents return values, so the description doesn't need to repeat them. It is complete for an agent to correctly use the tool.

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 describes job_id as 'The job_id returned when the task was started,' which is clear. The description adds an example URL showing how to embed the job_id, reinforcing that the value comes from a job-starting tool. This is a modest improvement over the schema baseline, which would be 3, so a 4 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's function: 'Get the status or result of a job started by deep_research, translate_pdf, or make_slides.' It uses a specific verb ('get') with a well-defined resource ('job'), and explicitly names the sibling tools that create jobs, distinguishing it from other tools in the list.

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 provides explicit usage instructions: 'Poll every 15-30 seconds until status is "done" or "error"' and 'follow retry_after_seconds and next_action; when complete, prefer structured_result when present.' This gives clear when-to-use and how-to-use guidance, including response handling, which is more than sufficient.

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