Get DataLens workbook export status

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. With no output schema, the description usefully discloses the return payload: the three terminal/transient states and the notifications structure (id, level, message). That is meaningful added context beyond the annotations.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the status values are front-loaded. The second sentence about notifications is a bit loosely phrased but still earns its place by documenting return fields absent an output schema.

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 single-parameter, read-only status lookup, describing the possible states and the notifications payload is largely sufficient given no output schema exists. It stops short of explaining polling behavior or the handoff to result_get, leaving a small 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 100% and export_id is documented there as coming from workbookexports_start. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 conveys what the tool returns (export phase: pending/success/error, progress percent, notifications) which effectively communicates purpose, and the title supplies the verb. It does not, however, distinguish this status tool from close siblings like datalens_workbookexports_result_get or _cancel, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance: no mention of polling after workbookexports_start, no statement of what to do while status is pending, and no routing to result_get for the actual artifact. The agent must infer the workflow entirely from context.

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