job_status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, so the description should add context such as whether job state is retained after completion, whether 'result' is only available in a terminal state, or whether repeated calls are cheap. It mentions 'status and result' but does not explain the relationship between them or the states implied by 'status'.

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?

One short sentence with no filler and the key relationship front-loaded. It is efficient, though brevity here edges toward under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place an agent could learn what 'status' and 'result' look like — and it says nothing about possible status values, result shape, or handling of unknown or expired jobs. For a polling-style tool with no return-value documentation, that is a meaningful gap.

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?

With a single parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the meaning of jobId. It only implies the link to run_job ('a job started with') rather than stating that jobId is the identifier returned by that call, and the uuid format is left entirely to the schema.

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 names a specific resource (a job's status and result) and anchors it to its counterpart, run_job, so an agent can distinguish the read-side from the start-side. It is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb, but the intent (retrieve job state) is unambiguous.

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?

Saying the job was 'started with run_job' implies the correct sequencing, which is useful. However, it gives no guidance on polling behavior, whether the tool can be called before a job finishes, or what to do if the jobId is unknown.

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