combell_provisioning_jobs_get

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful runtime behavior: 'ongoing' status with estimated completion time, 'finished' with resource_links, and handling guidance for 'failed'. This goes well beyond the structured hints and prepares the agent for real responses.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by two compact sentences covering response states and operational guidance. There is no redundancy and every sentence contributes useful information.

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 explaining return semantics, and it does: ongoing with estimated completion time, finished with resource_links, and failed with a support action. The origin of job_id and the poll-until-complete behavior are also covered, making the tool self-sufficient for an agent.

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% for the single job_id parameter, and the schema already explains that it comes from the Location header / provisioning_job_id. The description reinforces the origin ('returned by account, MySQL database/user and domain operations') but does not add significant new parameter-level meaning.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the status of a provisioning job'. It further clarifies scope by naming the operations that return such jobs (account, MySQL database/user, domain), making it immediately distinct from sibling get/list 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?

The description gives explicit behavioral guidance: do not retry the original operation until the job is finished or cancelled, and contact support on 'failed'. This tells the agent exactly when and how to use the polling endpoint, and what to avoid doing instead.

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