alterlab_get_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavioral traits: the polling cost model ('Polling is free'), the billing consequence of misuse, and the meaning of each terminal status, including 'rejected' due to insufficient balance. It does not cover permissions/auth or the shape of the returned result, leaving some gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the usage condition, then the status semantics and the cost warning. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by enumerating the five status values and clarifying the terminal 'rejected' state. For a single-parameter polling tool, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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% and there is a single parameter, so the schema already documents job_id fully. The description still adds value by explaining the provenance of the ID (an async or downgraded scrape outliving the ~85s synchronous window), reinforcing the schema's own note.

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 ('Fetch the status and result of an asynchronous scrape job by job_id') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the siblings that generate jobs (alterlab_scrape, alterlab_screenshot). An agent can route correctly without opening 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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ('when alterlab_scrape or alterlab_screenshot returns a job_id instead of content') and a clear directive for the terminal case ('rejected ... stop polling and check the balance'). It also warns against the wrong action (do not re-run the scrape, which would be billed again), which is strong when-to/when-not guidance.

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