job_result

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

With no annotations, the description provides full behavioral transparency: it details the four possible result types (succeeded, failed, cancelled/running, unknown) and notes the envelope matches the sync tool. This is comprehensive.

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 sentences, no fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by clear case-by-case behavior. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (context signal indicates it exists), the description adequately covers return values for all states. No missing behavioral details for a retrieval tool.

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 only parameter is job_id (string, required). Schema coverage is 0%, but the parameter is self-explanatory. The description adds no extra semantics, but given its triviality, it is sufficient. A higher score would require clarifying format or source.

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 clearly states it returns a finished background job's result envelope, with explicit differentiation for succeeded, failed, cancelled/running, and unknown job IDs. This distinguishes it from siblings like job_status (polling) and list_jobs.

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 explains when to use (for finished jobs) and advises polling job_status for still-running jobs. It also mentions error cases (unknown id returns JOB_NOT_FOUND). It could be more explicit about when not to use, but the guidance is clear.

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