consultar_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It does clarify that checking status is a polling operation and implies it is safe to call repeatedly, but it does not discuss statuses beyond PROCESSING, terminal states, errors, or concurrency implications.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the key polling instruction. There is no wasted text or repetition.

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 1-parameter polling tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete. The only missing context is the full job-status lifecycle, but the description covers the most important behavior (keep polling during PROCESSING) while the output schema handles return-value details.

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 single parameter job_id is self-explanatory from its name and the description's reference to 'job'. The schema already provides the field name and required status, and the description adds no format or derivation details, but none are critically needed here.

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 ('Consulta') and resource ('estado do job'), making it immediately clear the tool checks job status. It also adds a behavioral nuance about polling during PROCESSING, which distinguishes it from the sibling processing/discarding tools.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to keep polling while the status is PROCESSING and not to ask for 'Feito' during that time. This is direct, actionable guidance for the polling workflow.

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