Get job status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: a bounded blocking wait, offset/nextOffset paging of results, and an in-memory retention window of one hour (or until server restart). It stops short of saying what happens when the job is not found or has expired, which is the one behavior an agent most needs to handle an error path.

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 purpose, then the wait behavior, then paging and retention. No filler, though the first sentence is a noun fragment that costs a beat of clarity compared to a verb-first phrasing.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so at a high level (progress plus paged results, optional detailed mode implied by the schema). Retention and blocking semantics are the right things to disclose; only the expired/not-found behavior is missing.

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%, and the description covers just two of the five parameters: waitSeconds (already documented in the schema) and offset via the paging note. jobId, limit, and the concise/detailed response_format trade-off are left entirely to the schema, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 resource (an optimize_images job) and what is returned (progress and results), so an agent can tell it apart from optimize_images, which creates the job. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling used to cancel or to fetch analysis, but the verb+resource pairing is 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 mention of waiting up to waitSeconds implies polling/blocking usage, and the phrasing hints this is the follow-up to optimize_images, but the description never says when to call it versus cancel_job or when a polling loop is appropriate. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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