eds_get_job_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It discloses that it reports state (created/running/stopped) and processed/failed counts, which is valuable. However, it does not mention potential error cases (e.g., job not found), whether it is read-only, or any side effects, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every phrase adds value. No filler or redundant information, making it highly effective for quick comprehension.

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?

Without an output schema, the description rightly includes what the tool reports (state and counts). It is complete enough for a 2-parameter status-check tool, though it could mention error behavior or polling semantics. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with meaningful descriptions for both parameters ('Job name returned by the bulk operation' and 'Job topic returned by the bulk operation'). The description modestly reinforces this by naming the originating tools, but it does not add substantial semantic meaning beyond the schema, hence the baseline score of 3.

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 ('Check the progress') and clearly identifies the resource ('an asynchronous bulk job started by eds_bulk_preview or eds_bulk_publish'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on bulk job status rather than page/config operations, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: after starting a bulk job via eds_bulk_preview or eds_bulk_publish. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for an agent to recognize the appropriate invocation scenario.

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