get_job_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'Get', such as what status values may appear or whether the call reflects updated progress. No contradiction exists.

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, focused sentence with no filler. The verb and object are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable for an agent.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only status lookup with strong annotations, the definition is mostly sufficient. However, with no output schema, it does not indicate what statuses or fields the response contains, and the absence of usage guidance leaves minor but real ambiguity.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single job_id parameter is adequately documented as the ID returned by crawl_site. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Get') and resource ('status of a crawl job'), making the tool's purpose clear. It is naturally distinct from siblings like crawl_site or cancel_crawl, though it does not explicitly name or contrast alternatives.

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?

Usage is only implied: checking the status of a crawl job makes sense after calling crawl_site, and the schema's job_id description references crawl_site as the source of the ID. However, the description itself gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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