Check Company Search 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 of behavioral disclosure. It only says it gets a status but does not explain possible status values, whether it returns immediately or blocks, or what the response structure looks like. For a status-checking tool, this lack of detail could cause misjudgment about whether to poll.

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 a single sentence with zero fluff. The core action and key input are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable. It efficiently conveys the essential purpose without wasting words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and lack of an output schema, the description should provide more background about what 'status' means, possible values, and how it integrates with the workflow. Omitting these details leaves an agent without the information needed to interpret the response or decide if further actions are required. The reference to 'step 1' is insufficient.

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?

The schema fully documents the request_id parameter (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small bit of contextual meaning by indicating the request_id comes from a prior step, which is helpful but does not compensate further beyond schema. The description does not introduce additional parameter semantics such as format or constraints.

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 clearly states the action ('Get the status') and the resource ('your search'), with the required input (request_id). It is unambiguous but does not differentiate from the similar sibling 'check_search_status', which likely serves a generic counterpart. Still, the purpose is specific enough for an agent to understand what it does.

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 a multi-step workflow ('using the request_id given in step 1') but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling 'check_search_status' or any other alternative. There are no exclusions or context about the polling flow, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate usage scenario.

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