Get job status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses job id persistence ('stay resolvable indefinitely'), error semantics ('not-found error means the id is wrong'), return behavior (status, compact result, or error message), and advises retry after a wait if still running—all beyond basic 'get status'.

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 a single dense paragraph, but every sentence earns its place—no fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then systematically covers usage, parameters, and behavior. Slightly long for a single-tool description, but well structured and informative.

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?

Contextually complete: one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers what the tool does, when to use it, parameter semantics, return values, error cases, and retry behavior. There is nothing meaningful missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description enriches the parameter meaning significantly: 'copy it verbatim from the timeout error message', the indefinite resolvability, and the backtest-id fallback. This goes well beyond the schema's simple text, making the parameter's intent and usage crystal clear.

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 a Pyon async job directly.' It explicitly distinguishes it from siblings by positioning it as the 'escape hatch when a waiting tool timed out' and explains which tools it applies to, 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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'use when a waiting tool timed out' and enumerates the tools whose jobs can be checked. It also clarifies the run_backtest backtest-id fallback, providing clear context for when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives.

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