check_job_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic purpose without behavioral details. It doesn't cover what the status response includes (e.g., pending, completed, failed), whether it's idempotent, rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions for invalid IDs.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple status-checking tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns status details. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., progress percentage, error messages), leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's full behavior and output.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (requestId and jobType with enum). The description adds minimal value by hinting at job types (e.g., video generation, 3D model) but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already specifies.

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 action ('check the status') and resource ('async job'), with examples of job types (video generation, 3D model) that help clarify scope. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_job_result', which might retrieve results rather than just status.

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 usage after initiating an async job but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_job_result' or other job-related tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, error handling, or specific contexts for invocation.

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