Get Niche Dive Status

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. Beyond that, the description discloses the three return shapes keyed by status, the timing behavior (dives take minutes), the estimatedCompletionDate hint, and the re-dive semantics (same nicheId, refreshed data), which is valuable operational context for a polling tool. It stops short of mentioning any rate limits or quota behavior, so not a full 5.

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 front-loaded with the core instruction and organized by return status, with every sentence carrying load (workflow, return shapes, follow-ups, cadence). It is somewhat dense but not padded.

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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by describing the three response shapes and how to use the nicheId downstream. Nothing an agent needs to poll and act on the result is missing.

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% and the single parameter (diveId) is fully described in the schema, including its source tools. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (poll), resource (a niche dive), and ties it to the exact producer tools (create_niche_dive, create_niche_dive_from_competitors_list, redive_niche), distinguishing it clearly from those siblings. An agent can immediately tell this is the status-check endpoint rather than a dive-creation tool.

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?

It says explicitly when to use it ('poll ... until it finishes'), names the predecessor tools, gives re-polling cadence guidance ('dives can take minutes', use estimatedCompletionDate to know when to check), and routes to the correct follow-up tools on success. The full workflow context is provided.

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