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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the full status progression, expected latency ranges, partial-result availability during 'enriching', how to detect whether more results may appear via 'progress_validated < candidate_records', and recovery behavior using the same job_id after transport/session failure.

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place: it front-loads the core purpose, then organizes polling cadence, terminal states, partial-result behavior, and failure recovery into logical sections with no filler or repeated schema content.

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 the moderate complexity of job-status polling, the description covers everything an agent needs: when to call, how often to poll, which states are active vs terminal, when partial results are available, how to coordinate with pull_results, and how to resume. An output schema is flagged as present, so enumerating return fields is unnecessary.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for job_id by confirming it comes from submit_query and that the same job_id should be reused to resume after failures, which goes slightly beyond the schema. api_key is adequately covered by the schema itself.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check the status of a submitted job.' It further clarifies this is the post-submit polling tool by stating 'Call this after submit_query', which distinguishes it from siblings like get_dataset_status, get_monitor_status, and pull_results.

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 gives explicit timing guidance ('First check after ~1-2 minutes, then poll every 30-60 seconds'), terminal conditions ('Stop polling when status is completed or failed'), active states to continue polling, and explicit anti-patterns ('Do NOT call this tool in a tight loop'). It also tells the user when to use pull_results instead, covering the key alternative workflow.

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