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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that only completed inline jobs are retrievable under the current public contract, while durable queued jobs and downloadable artifacts remain unsupported. This enriches the annotation without contradicting it.

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: the first states the core action with precision, the second provides a clear contract limitation. No unnecessary words or 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 simple read-only status tool with full schema coverage and a read-only annotation, the description is largely sufficient. It covers purpose and contract limitations, but the lack of an output schema means a brief note on return value would be useful, and the term 'bounded v0' is somewhat cryptic.

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 100%, setting a baseline of 3, but the description adds meaning by requiring job_id to be a completed 'bounded v0' job, which goes beyond the schema's simple origin reference and clarifies expected job state. request_id is already well-documented in the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieves' and clearly identifies the resource as 'completed bounded v0 geometry export or conversion job' accessed 'by job_id'. This distinguishes it from sibling creation/estimation tools such as create_geometry_export and create_conversion_job.

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 implies usage for retrieving completed inline jobs and explicitly notes that durable queued jobs and artifact links are future capabilities, which sets expectations. The schema also references create_geometry_export and create_conversion_job as job_id origin points, but the description itself does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool relative to alternatives.

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