job_status

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe-read profile, so the description's added value is the state-machine detail: queued vs finished, and the estimated start for pending jobs. It says nothing about polling cadence, staleness of the estimate, or retention of finished-job history.

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 short sentences with the state progression front-loaded and no filler; every clause carries information about what the caller receives.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, and the description still conveys the lifecycle semantics (queue then history) that matter for interpreting a status call. Only the absence of any usage routing among many job-related siblings keeps it from being fully complete.

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 0% and the single required job_id is undocumented, but it is a self-explanatory identifier with no ambiguity in type or role. Minimum-viable baseline is appropriate since the parameter needs little elaboration.

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 resource (job state) and enumerates what it returns: queue position, history once finished, and estimated start for pending jobs. That distinguishes it from job_output and list_jobs by implication, but it never explicitly names a sibling the way the top-tier example does.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as job_live_metrics, job_system_health, or wait_for_job, despite a crowded set of job-inspection siblings. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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