get_research_job

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does state the tool is a query ('查询'), implying a read-only operation, and says it returns status and results. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, whether the query blocks, polling behavior, or error/return semantics. The 'M10' label is cryptic and adds no behavioral value.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences, with the purpose stated up front and the parameter explanation immediately following. There is no redundant content. The only minor blemish is the unexplained 'M10', but it does not meaningfully hurt comprehension.

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 simple one-parameter helper, the description covers the core need: what the tool does and where the parameter comes from. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it does not describe the response format, whether results are returned inline, or how this differs from the sibling get_status. That leaves some ambiguity for an agent deciding between tools.

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 input schema only defines job_id as a bare string with no description. The description adds meaningful semantics by specifying that the job_id is the one returned by create_research_job, deep_research, or plan_research. Given 0% schema description coverage, this is valuable compensation.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: querying job status and results ('查询任务状态与结果'), using a specific resource (a research job). This is more specific than the name alone. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_status', which may overlap in function, so it stops short of a 5.

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 by explaining that the job_id comes from create_research_job / deep_research / plan_research jobs. That gives useful context about which jobs this tool applies to. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings like get_status, list_research_jobs, or cancel_research_job.

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