Check an async job

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

With no annotations to convey safety or side effects, the description carries the full burden. It states it 'polls' a job, but does not disclose what the response contains, whether it blocks, what statuses are possible, or any rate-limit/failure behavior. This minimal transparency leaves the agent uncertain about expected outcomes.

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 sentence that conveys the core functionality without redundant words. It is front-loaded and every phrase earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple, but without an output schema the description should explain what a polling response looks like (status, results, error handling). It only says 'poll' without describing the return value or any nuances like repeated polling semantics. This is a significant gap for an async job checker.

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 schema provides parameter names and an enum for kind, but no descriptions. The description adds meaningful context by mapping kind values to specific job types (crawl_site and extract_structured), clarifying that 'id' refers to a job id. It does not fully compensate for the 0% schema coverage but provides essential linkage.

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 function: to poll an asynchronous job, explicitly naming the two job types (crawl_site and extract_structured). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that create or scrape, making the purpose 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?

The description implies when to use it: after launching a crawl_site or extract_structured job. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives or any exclusions. Since no alternative polling tool exists, the implicit context is adequate but not fully explicit.

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