get_status

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

Annotations already declare it is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive; the description adds real context beyond that by disclosing the metered asynchronous job, possible retention of delivery state, and the fact that it does not revise seller terms. This is consistent with readOnlyHint=false, since the write effect is job creation rather than data mutation. It does not mention auth or rate-limit specifics beyond 'metered'.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by the return/hand-off behavior and constraints. 'without inference' is slightly cryptic but the rest is waste-free.

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 no output schema, the description correctly explains that the return value is a job requiring polling, which is the key thing an agent needs. It does not say what the offer status payload contains, but that is a minor gap for a two-parameter tool.

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%, with both session_id and request_id fully documented including retry/idempotency semantics, so the description adds nothing parameter-specific. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the full burden.

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: ask the existing agent for the current offer status. It also distinguishes its return shape from the sibling get_result by saying it returns a job to be polled there. It does not differentiate itself from assess_offer_readiness or get_export_part, so it stops short of 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?

The sentence 'Returns a job; poll get_result' gives explicit routing: call this to kick off, then use the sibling to retrieve results. There is no explicit when-not guidance relative to assess_offer_readiness, but the async-job framing makes the usage context clear.

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