Job Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds important non-annotated behavior: it returns at once rather than blocking, and job_wait is the blocking alternative. It does not add further details about progress granularity, but the output schema exists to cover return shape.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and immediately followed by the key behavioral constraint and alternative. There is no redundant or wasted text.

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 read-only status-check tool with full schema coverage, annotations covering safety, and a separate output schema, the description supplies exactly the missing context: current state/progress and non-blocking behavior. Nothing needed to select or invoke it correctly appears to be absent.

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 100% and the single job_id parameter is already described in the schema, including where the id comes from. The description adds no further parameter semantics, which is acceptable at baseline 3 when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific resource and action: the current state and progress of a long-running job, with concrete examples (render, transcription). It also contrasts itself with the blocking sibling job_wait, so an agent can distinguish its role immediately.

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 says to use job_wait instead when blocking until completion is desired. That is a clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use rule tied to a named alternative, leaving little to inference.

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