Get Async Operation Status

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

The description fully discloses the read-only behavior and adds context beyond annotations: it explains why operations are async (processing in background) and lists all possible statuses. No contradictions with annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint).

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?

Three tight sentences, with the most critical information front-loaded ('Poll the status...'). Every sentence adds value: main action, why async, and statuses. No wasted 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains input source, output (statuses), and context. The agent has all necessary information to use the tool effectively.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds significant value by specifying the source of the operationId (from async tools like register_domain, renew_domain, etc.), which the schema alone does not provide. This helps the agent understand how to obtain the required input.

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 tool polls status of an asynchronous operation by ID. It specifies the exact verb ('poll the status') and resource ('async operation'), and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the types of operations (domain registration, renewal, restore, transfer) that produce operationIds.

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 when to use: after initiating async operations that return an operationId. It lists possible statuses, providing clear guidance. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_transfer_status', which may be an alternative for specific transfer tracking, missing a when-not-to-use opportunity.

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