Get Search Job Status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get the current status' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention failure modes, whether it can be called repeatedly, or what happens if the jobId is invalid. This is insufficient transparency for a tool with no structured annotation support.

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 no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 status-check tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It states what the tool does and clarifies the source of the jobId. However, it does not describe possible return statuses or error behavior, which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema.

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 documents jobId with 'The search job ID (returned by previous search operations)' at 100% coverage. The description adds the context 'started by this MCP server process', which reinforces that the job must come from this server, but this is largely already implied by the schema. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'current status of a Sumo Logic search job', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like sumo_cancel_search and sumo_search_logs. The phrase 'started by this MCP server process' adds scope and prevents confusion with jobs from other sources.

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 usage (checking status after starting a search job) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It provides no exclusions or direct references to sibling tools, so the guidance is only implied rather than stated.

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