get_download_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the polling nature of the tool and provides the full return shape including statuses (queued/running/done/error), elapsed time, and result/error fields. While it does not explicitly state it is read-only or discuss rate limits, the query semantics and return contract are transparent enough for a simple async job monitoring tool.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a clearly formatted Returns section. Every sentence earns its place, and the structured return format is easy to parse. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, async job polling) and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the job_id source, the progress statuses, and the return structure. It could mention error scenarios or repeated polling behavior, but these are minor gaps for a minimal 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?

The schema only defines job_id as a string with no description (coverage 0%). The description compensates by explaining that job_id comes from install_campaign's async_mode=True response, which adds essential meaning. It does not specify format or validation rules, but the provenance detail is valuable.

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 queries the progress of an asynchronous download task, specifically the job_id returned by install_campaign when async_mode=True. This is a specific verb (query) and resource (download job progress), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like install_campaign by being the status-check counterpart.

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 indicates when to use this tool: after calling install_campaign with async_mode=True and receiving a job_id. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the usage context is clear and likely sufficient for an agent to select it correctly.

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