Read a background job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the job is asynchronous and that both status and result are returned, which is modest but genuine value beyond the annotations; it says nothing about polling behavior, job states, or failure modes.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure economy.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values, and 'status and result' is only a minimal sketch — no indication of status values or result shape. Combined with the undocumented job_id, the definition is adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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 single required parameter job_id has 0% schema description coverage and the description adds no information about it — not its format, nor which prior call produces it. The description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 ('Read') and resource ('asynchronous Brain job') plus what is retrieved (status and result). It clearly identifies the operation, though it does nothing to distinguish itself from the surrounding sibling tools.

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 word 'asynchronous' hints that this is used after kicking off a job, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite stating where a job_id originates, and no named alternative. The agent must infer the entire usage context.

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