get_job_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns (percentage and URLs) and that it only finishes 'when processing wraps', but it does not mention error handling, authentication, rate limits, or explicitly confirm that polling is non-destructive. It offers some useful context but lacks deeper behavioral details.

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 description is a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the main verb and resource. It packs in the triggering context, the return values, and the completion condition without any fluff. Every phrase earns its place.

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 the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: what the tool polls, what it returns, and when it finishes. It lacks explicit notes on error cases or retry behavior, but for a straightforward status-polling tool, this level of detail is sufficient.

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 provides only the parameter name 'job_id' with type string and minLength. The description does not explicitly explain this parameter, but by stating that it polls jobs from specific operations, it gives meaningful context about what job_id refers to. Since there is only one parameter and its name is self-explanatory, the description adds some value beyond the schema, but it does not fully compensate for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Poll') and clearly identifies the resource ('asynchronous MCP jobs') along with the context (triggered by formatting, tailoring, anonymization, or bulk batches). It also states what the tool returns (completion percentage and download URLs), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that trigger jobs.

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 description implies when to use the tool—after triggering jobs from operations like formatting or bulk batches—but it does not explicitly state 'use when you have a job_id from a prior call' or name alternatives. The usage context is clear but not directly stated, so it falls under 'implied usage'.

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