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

The annotation readOnlyHint: true indicates a read-only operation, which aligns with the description's 'Get' action. No side effects are implied or contradicted, and the description accurately reflects the tool's non-mutating behavior.

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 and front-loaded, using two short sentences to convey purpose and usage. Every word adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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 polling tool, the description fully captures what it does, when to use it, and what it returns (status and output). Given the lack of an output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 parameter job_id is described as 'Job id.' which is accurate but adds no additional context beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the description meets the baseline but does not enrich the parameter understanding.

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 purpose: to get a generation job's status and output. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_project_jobs (which lists jobs) and generate_* tools (which create jobs) by focusing on polling a specific 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?

Explicitly instructs to use this tool to poll a job returned by a generate_* tool, providing clear when-to-use guidance. This eliminates ambiguity about its role in the generation workflow.

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