Poll Job Status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Check' indicates a read-only, non-mutating poll, and 'used during the connection flow' adds useful context. However, it does not disclose polling semantics such as whether the call is non-blocking, what statuses may appear, or how to interpret the result for next steps.

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 two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the usage context immediately after. There is no filler or redundant wording.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description is mostly sufficient for invoking it. However, with no output schema it does not explain what status values are returned or how the agent should react to them, which is relevant in a connection flow that may require MFA or further polling.

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 100% and jobId is already documented as coming from create_connection. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('check'), a specific resource ('status of a bank connection job'), and places it in the connection flow. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like create_connection or answer_mfa, which perform different actions.

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 says the tool is used during the connection flow, giving clear contextual timing. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool is a plausible substitute for polling job status.

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