os_map_get_export

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the fact that the job is async, implying the agent may need to poll, which is valuable context. However, it doesn't disclose any other behavior (e.g., possible statuses, polling semantics) beyond what the annotations imply.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource. It is appropriately sized for a simple status-check tool, though it could have added a note about the prerequisite without becoming verbose.

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?

There is an output schema, so return values need not be explained in the description. The description tells the agent it gets status for an export job and implicitly that an exportId is needed. However, it does not mention that the exportId must come from a prior os_map_export call, which is a prerequisite that would help an agent sequence the calls correctly. Still adequate for a simple polling 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but does not. The only parameter, exportId, is not described in the description at all. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description provides no additional meaning (e.g., where to obtain it, format, or constraints), failing to add value beyond the schema.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'async export status for a selector-driven os_map.export job'. It is specific enough to distinguish from os_downloads_get_export by mentioning os_map. But it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the similarly named os_map_export_roads, so it misses a point.

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 implies it is used after starting an os_map export job (as a status poll), but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like os_downloads_get_export or when not to use it. No exclusions or conditions are given, leaving the usage context implicit.

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