get_search_job_status

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), the description adds valuable behavioral details: it reads only, costs no credits no matter how often it is called, requires an API key, and returns a still-running job as a normal response rather than an error.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then supplementary usage and behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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 there is no output schema, the description sufficiently covers return values (run state, progress, leads found so far) and the asynchronous polling behavior. It also explains when the result is not an error, which is essential for correct agent behavior.

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 schema already fully defines jobId with a description, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaning by clarifying the jobId comes from search_leads and is meant to be reused across repeated polling calls.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Poll one lead-search job for its progress and results.' It clearly identifies the tool as the companion to search_leads, distinguishing it from related tools like search_leads and list_leads.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: call repeatedly with the jobId until the job finishes, leave a few seconds between polls, and polling harder does not make it faster. This is actionable context beyond the schema.

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