check_job_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return contract (status values plus a results URL) and implicitly that this is a non-destructive read. It omits whether polling is rate-limited, whether it is safe to call repeatedly, and how it differs behaviorally from the blocking wait_for_job, so the disclosure is only partial.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the return value second — no filler. Slightly more could be trimmed, but it earns its place and is well ordered.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the necessary return-value detail (statuses and results URL). It nonetheless leaves the sibling-routing question unresolved, which matters here because wait_for_job and get_job_details overlap semantically.

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%, so job_id and the server_type enum are fully documented in the schema itself, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds no further parameter meaning (e.g., why server_type must match the original submission endpoint), which is acceptable given the schema already does the work.

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 ('Check the status of a submitted antiSMASH job') and even enumerates the possible status values, so the purpose is unambiguous. However, it never differentiates itself from close siblings like wait_for_job, get_job_details, or get_job_results, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 by the phrase 'submitted job' — the agent can infer this is a polling call for a job it already created. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternatives (wait_for_job for blocking, get_job_results for finished output), which is a real gap given the crowded sibling set.

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