get_sequence_search_results

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses that the tool is a polling endpoint, that it returns progress mid-run and a markdown hit summary on completion, and that the caller should re-poll after a delay. It omits what happens on an invalid or expired job_id, which keeps it from a 5.

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 key behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the return-state distinction and the retry cadence. The Args block is mildly redundant but small, and every remaining sentence carries real information.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return shapes; the polling loop and the progress-vs-final distinction are the essential missing pieces and both are present. Only failure-mode behavior (expired/unknown job) is unaddressed for this complexity level.

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 0% and the single parameter is only typed as 'string', so the description must supply meaning — it identifies job_id as the ID returned by search_sequence, which is exactly the linkage an agent needs. It does not state format or validity constraints.

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 — 'Check a sequence search job started by search_sequence' — and names the sibling tool that creates the job. An agent can distinguish this poller from search_sequence and the other siblings without reading any schema.

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?

Explicitly says to use this after search_sequence and gives concrete polling guidance ('wait e.g. 30-60s and call again') when the job is still running. It lacks any exclusion or termination/error guidance, so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.

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