get_result

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description explains the reason in operational terms: polling is metered and may wake queued processing, and it is explicitly not a side-effect-free read. That is exactly the non-obvious cost/effect information an agent needs before calling a repeated polling endpoint, and it is consistent with the annotations.

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?

Short, front-loaded sentences that each carry operational content: ownership, non-completion statuses, no-duplication, metering, and side effects. The fragment "No inference." is cryptic enough to cost a point since its meaning (do not assume completion?) has to be guessed.

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?

For a one-parameter polling tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key state vocabulary (pending/processing/uncertain) and the cost model. It does not indicate what a completed response contains or how statuses map to finality, which leaves a modest gap for an agent deciding when to stop polling.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents job_id as a stable UUID to poll rather than redispatch. The description reinforces 'poll this same job' but adds no new format, constraint, or edge-case meaning beyond that. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Read a job") plus the ownership scope ("owned by your authenticated client"), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby sibling get_status, so an agent must infer whether job polling and general status polling are the same thing.

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?

Gives real when-to-use context: pending/processing/uncertain are explicitly not completion, so the agent should poll the same job rather than dispatch replacement work. It also warns against duplicating an uncertain message. It omits any cadence guidance and never names an alternative sibling tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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