Get Job Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds value by stating it returns human-readable progress and credits charged. This goes beyond the annotation to explain output behavior. There is no contradiction. While it doesn't discuss polling frequency or potential wait times, the description is sufficiently transparent for a read-only status check.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every phrase adds value. No filler or repetition. It is efficient and clear, earning a top score.

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 the tool's simplicity (one required param, no output schema), the description fully captures what it does and what it returns. It mentions the job types (crawl/batch) and output details (progress, credits), making it complete for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool. The readOnly annotation further contextualizes safety.

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 coverage is 100% with the job_id parameter fully documented as 'Job id from metalift_crawl or metalift_batch_scrape.' The description does not add new parameter details, but the schema already provides sufficient context. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description adds little beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Poll' and identifies the resource as 'async crawl or batch job status and results.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like metalift_crawl and metalift_batch_scrape, which initiate jobs rather than check their status. The additional detail about returning 'human-readable progress (pages completed, credits charged)' further clarifies its purpose.

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 implies usage after launching an async job, mentioning 'async crawl or batch job' which correspond to siblings. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives (e.g., 'use this after starting a job with metalift_crawl'). Given the clear naming and context, it's a solid 4, missing only explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance.

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