get_content_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. It does disclose two useful traits: 'Credits: 0' (no cost) and 'read-only' (safe, non-mutating), which is meaningful for a status call. However, it says nothing about polling cadence, terminal states, or what happens when the query_id is unknown/invalid.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the resource and ends with the two most decision-relevant facts (no texts, free, read-only). No filler, though 'no texts' is slightly telegraphic.

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-value detail is not required, and the read-only/free framing covers behavior adequately for a status tool. The remaining gap is parameter documentation, particularly the optional project_id, which is undocumented everywhere.

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 and does not. The required query_id is only loosely implied by 'a content query', and the optional project_id is entirely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess whether it scopes the lookup.

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 (analysis status of a content query) plus article generation state, which distinguishes it from get_content_query and list_content_queries. The 'no texts' qualifier usefully signals it is a metadata-only view. It stops short of naming a verb but the name supplies 'get'.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus get_content_query or the article-status siblings. An agent must infer that this is a polling endpoint to use after create_content_query or generate_article_from_query. There are no exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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