Job Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful notion that results are 'retained' and that the byte count is a 'current' attestation (implying repeated polling), but says nothing about behavior when the job_id is unknown or expired.

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?

A single tight sentence with the verb and payload front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is slightly undermined by the unexplained term 'byte attestation'.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't enumerate return values, and the sole parameter is fully documented. However, for a status tool tied into a job lifecycle with many sibling producers, it omits when the tool is applicable and how to interpret a missing/expired job.

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% and the single job_id parameter is documented in-schema as 'Recorded durable job ID'. The description adds no format, origin, or lookup guidance beyond that, 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 gives a clear verb ('Read') and resource ('job'), plus the fields returned (identity, outcomes, byte attestation). It does not distinguish itself from the sibling job_cancel or from the ingestion tools that create jobs, and 'byte attestation' is opaque jargon, keeping it below a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus job_cancel, or when a job_id becomes available (e.g. after source_ingest or research_web). The agent must infer that this is a polling/status lookup from the name alone.

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