edf_get_job

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations: the polling loop and the enumeration of terminal states, which is exactly what an agent needs to drive the call sequence.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then polling behavior, then the one parameter caveat. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 does cover the return shape at a high level (job progress plus paginated result rows) and the terminal-state set that governs repeated calls. Pagination mechanics (defaults, max page size) are left to the schema, which is acceptable.

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 0% and there are four parameters. The one clarifying statement ('status filter applies to result rows') usefully disambiguates the enum so it is not mistaken for filtering on job state, but id, limit, and offset are left entirely unexplained by both schema and description.

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 (Get) and resource (saved job progress and paginated result rows), which is materially more informative than the bare name edf_get_job. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings edf_list_jobs or edf_cancel_job, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 clear operational context: poll repeatedly until the job reaches a terminal state (completed, cancelled, failed, interrupted). It does not name alternatives such as edf_list_jobs (to discover job ids) or edf_cancel_job, so the routing guidance is incomplete rather than explicit.

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