get_job_result

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving 'final results' for 'completed' jobs, which implies read-only behavior, but it doesn't cover critical aspects like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the job isn't completed. This leaves significant behavioral traits undocumented.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to parse and understand quickly, with zero waste or redundancy.

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 complexity of async job operations and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the 'final result' entails, how to handle errors, or any behavioral constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable tool invocation in this environment.

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 has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters and their purposes. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format details or usage examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate or add value here.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('final result of a completed async job'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'check_job_status' or 'check_payment_status', which might have overlapping functionality, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides minimal guidance by implying usage for 'completed async job' results, but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_job_status' or other job-related tools. There's no explicit mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual alternatives, leaving gaps in usage direction.

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