qradar_get_search_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses meaningful behavior by listing the possible statuses (WAIT, EXECUTE, COMPLETED), progress percentage, and record count in the return. It does not mention error behavior or cancellation conditions, but for a status-check tool this is strong disclosure.

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 appropriately brief and front-loaded. The purpose sentence states the action, and the Args/Returns format is compact with no filler, redundant phrasing, or irrelevant details.

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 status-check tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential details: what it does, the parameter meaning, and the return content. It could mention the relationship to qradar_execute_aql_search and qradar_get_search_results, but the tool is still callable without that gate.

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 input schema only provides the type 'string' for search_id with zero schema coverage. The description compensates fully by stating that search_id is 'The UUID of the search job,' which is exactly the semantic information an agent needs to supply the right value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('Ariel search job'), and clarifies this is about 'status and progress' rather than results. This differentiates it from siblings like qradar_get_search_results, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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 usage context is implied by the purpose: use it to check the progress of an Ariel search job. However, there is no explicit guidance, such as 'poll this after qradar_execute_aql_search' or 'use qradar_get_search_results instead once status is COMPLETED.'

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