Job status

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, openWorld=true), and the description adds the key behavior that the call blocks up to waitSeconds and then downloads a file to local storage, explaining why readOnlyHint is false. It omits what happens on timeout (job still running?) and where output lands by default.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the behavioral and usage notes. The final clause is slightly redundant with the name but earns its place as an anti-pattern warning.

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 5-param, no-output-schema tool with low schema coverage, the description covers the core waiting/downloading contract but leaves the download-destination parameters (fileName, outputDirectory) and the timeout/not-finished outcome unexplained.

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 coverage is only 40%, so jobId, fileName and outputDirectory are undocumented in structured fields. The description explains jobId and the waitSeconds behavior ('waits up to waitSeconds'), but adds nothing about fileName/outputDirectory destination semantics, leaving half the gap unfilled.

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+resource: retrieving the status of a named Axcel job by jobId, plus the side behavior of downloading the result. It distinguishes itself from axcel_active_jobs and axcel_download_job implicitly, but never names those siblings, so an agent must 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?

Gives one real usage rule ('Use the SAME jobId; never resubmit a slow job'), which is a genuine polling/waiting constraint. It does not say when to prefer axcel_download_job or axcel_active_jobs instead, or when to poll with waitSeconds=0 versus waiting.

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