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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It covers job processing time, polling etiquette, status progression, partial result availability, and failure recovery. It also advises on tracking progress via 'progress_validated' vs 'candidate_records.' There are no contradictions or omissions.

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 well-structured with clear sections for main purpose, status progression, important notes, and detailed polling guidance. It is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently conveys a lot of information without superfluous text. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool complexity (polling, status states, partial results) and the presence of an output schema (which presumably describes return values), the description covers all necessary behavioral aspects: when to call, how to interpret statuses, polling frequency, partial results, and error recovery. It is complete for a status-checking 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description adds minimal extra context (e.g., 'The job ID returned from submit_query' for job_id and optional api_key with fallbacks) but does not elaborate on format or constraints. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description does not significantly enhance understanding beyond 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 starts with a clear statement of purpose: 'Check the status of a submitted job.' It expands with specific verb 'check' and resource 'status of a submitted job.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'submit_query' and 'pull_results' by detailing the status progression and when to call. This provides immediate clarity.

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 states when to use the tool ('Call this after submit_query'), provides polling frequency recommendations, and states when to stop polling. It also advises on when not to call in a tight loop and how to handle partial results with 'pull_results.' This comprehensive guidance effectively differentiates usage from alternatives.

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