create_job

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the operation is asynchronous, billable, and returns a job_id for polling. However, it does not mention side effects, idempotency, error behavior, or any destructive potential, leaving gaps.

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 sentences, no redundant information. Every word adds value: 'Create', 'asynchronous', 'billable', 'returns job_id to poll'. Efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Despite having an output schema (presumably describing the return), the description is too minimal for a complex async operation. It lacks context on operation types, payload structure, polling semantics, and credit consumption details. The 0% schema coverage exacerbates the gap.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It completely omits any details about the required parameters 'operation' and 'payload', such as expected format or allowed values. This makes it very difficult for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Description clearly states the tool creates an asynchronous job for a billable operation and returns a job_id. The verb 'create' and resource 'asynchronous job' are specific, and the tool is easily distinguished from sibling tools (e.g., fetch, scrape, get_job) which are data retrieval or monitoring 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'billable operation' but does not clarify prerequisites, scenarios, or when not to use it. Siblings like get_job are related but no comparison provided.

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