get_job_status

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior the schema does not: the call can block up to 45 seconds and should not be loop-polled. It says nothing about permission requirements, error/not-found behavior, or what happens if wait_seconds exceeds 45.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the key parameter constraint, then the agent directive. No filler and nothing buried.

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 two-parameter status check with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the mechanics of waiting but not the outcome space — it never says what statuses exist or how to recognize a terminal state, which is exactly what the agent needs to decide whether to call get_job_result next.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain wait_seconds (range 0-45, waits for completion), but job_id — the required parameter — gets no semantics at all, leaving the caller to guess whether it is the handle returned by transcribe.

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?

"How far a transcription job has got" names the resource (transcription job) and the concept queried (progress/status), so the intent is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate from close siblings like get_job_result or list_jobs, which an agent must choose between.

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?

Gives an explicit operating instruction: pass wait_seconds 0-45 to block until the job finishes, and "Do not poll in a loop" — a clear exclusion of a common wrong behavior. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over get_job_result or when a job is terminal.

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