Poll Job Status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It discloses polling interval, MFA field appearance, completion condition (LastStatus 'Completed'), success/failure semantics for SuccessFlag, and the edge case that refresh jobs may never set SuccessFlag. This goes well beyond a simple 'check status' and provides actionable operational detail.

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 four concise sentences, each carrying essential information with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the purpose, then adds operational details. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the most critical aspects: how to poll, when to switch to answer_mfa, and how to interpret completion. It could additionally mention timeout/error handling, but for a polling tool it is largely complete. The minor gap keeps it from a 5.

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 fully describes jobId as 'Job ID from create_connection or refresh_account' (100% coverage). The description adds only the context of 'connection or refresh job' without additional parameter-specific details. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Check the status of a connection or refresh job.' This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from siblings like create_connection or answer_mfa. It also references job types and MFA handling, making its scope unmistakable.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: poll every 4-5 seconds, and if MFA fields appear, use answer_mfa instead. It also gives clear completion criteria. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, only when to switch to an alternative, so it falls just short of 'explicit when/when-not/alternatives'.

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