get_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses the state-dependent return behavior (status while pending/processing, output URLs when completed) and that the call is free with no request quota — a genuinely useful operational trait. It stops short of covering failure cases (invalid id, failed job) or auth requirements.

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?

Two dense sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by return semantics and cost. No filler, and the example (async video render via record_video) earns its place by anchoring the abstract 'job' concept.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values — and it does, describing both the pending status and the completed output URLs. Combined with the cost note and the record_video linkage, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 100% for the single job_id parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description's note that the id is 'returned when a video is enqueued as an async job' echoes the schema's own wording, adding little new meaning.

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 verb (fetch) and resource (status/output of a single async job by id), and the 'single ... by id' scoping implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_jobs. An agent can tell immediately this is a point lookup, not an enumeration.

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?

Gives a concrete usage context — polling a job enqueued by record_video — and explains the pending vs. completed phases, which tells the agent this is a polling tool. It does not explicitly name list_jobs as the alternative for enumerating jobs, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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