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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it is an authenticated caller-owned lookup, and missing versus wrong-owner job IDs return identical 404 responses. This alerts the agent to privacy-conscious error design. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential ownership and error-behavior caveats. Every sentence adds value and there is no 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 single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, ownership model, and a critical error-handling nuance. The only minor gap is not stating how to obtain the job_id, but this is somewhat inferable from the async job creation context and sibling tools.

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 the description does not explain what a job_id looks like, where it comes from, or any format constraints. It only references job IDs in the context of missing/wrong-owner 404s, which is useful but insufficient for a parameter with no schema-level documentation.

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 a specific operation ('Check status'), a clear resource ('asynchronous STORM or Dataset agent job'), and scopes the lookup to caller-owned jobs. This distinguishes it from generic status tools and related siblings like cancel_agent_job and research_status.

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 the tool is for polling or checking asynchronous agent jobs and notes ownership restrictions, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over the sibling research_status or how it relates to cancel_agent_job. The 404 behavior gives useful context for handling responses, but the when-to-use guidance is only implicit.

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