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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful detail that a job may still be in a 'status' state rather than complete, but says nothing about polling cadence, failure states, or expiry.

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?

A single short sentence with zero padding, and the key concept (job status/result) is front-loaded. Brevity is appropriate for a one-parameter getter, though it borders on under-specification.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. For a single-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only handling of in-progress or invalid job IDs is missing.

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 0% and job_id is undocumented in the schema, but the description implicitly tells the agent where the ID comes from ('a job started with create_job'). That is real semantic value, though it never confirms the parameter's format or whether an unknown ID errors.

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 names the resource (a job) and what it returns (status and result), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_history or get_crawl. It lacks an explicit verb, but 'of a job started with create_job' anchors it precisely to a prior operation.

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?

It implies the tool is used after create_job, which gives the agent a usable lifecycle context. It does not say what to do if the job is still running (poll vs. wait), nor does it mention any alternative for retrieving results.

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