Check Job Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, but the description adds valuable context: it discloses that the tool is free (no credits charged), requires authentication, and details the three possible return states (complete result, failure reason, or 'still processing'). This goes beyond annotations and provides essential operational information.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: first sentence states purpose and source, second details return states, third covers cost, authentication, and parameter origin. It is front-loaded, efficient, and without redundant wording.

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?

With a single well-documented parameter, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, behavior, return types, cost, auth, and how to obtain the required parameter. It is complete for this tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% with job_id described as 'Job ID returned by verify_business when it runs asynchronously.' The description's instruction to 'Pass the job_id from the verify_business async response' essentially repeats the schema description, adding no new semantic meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'Poll' and identifies the resource as 'a long-running (async) verification job created by verify_business.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like verify_business (which creates the job) and get_account, get_config, etc. by focusing exclusively on polling job status.

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 states this tool is for polling jobs created by verify_business and instructs to pass the job_id from verify_business's async response, making the usage context clear. It does not explicitly address when-not-to-use or alternatives, but given the unique polling role among siblings, this is a minor gap.

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