get_validation_status

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure and does a good job: it reveals that the tool is non-blocking and intended for repeated polling, and it states the terminal statuses 'complete' and 'failed'. It does not cover error behavior or response format, but the primary polling behavior is transparently described.

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, tight sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with the essential usage instruction. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple one-parameter polling tool with no output schema, the description covers the key context: what to check, how often to poll, and when to stop. It does not spell out the exact response structure, but naming the terminal statuses 'complete' and 'failed' gives enough closure. Minor gaps around error handling and post-completion next steps prevent a perfect score.

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% and the only parameter, jobId, is already described as 'Job ID returned from start_validation' in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter detail beyond referencing validation jobs, but it also doesn't need to given the schema already fully documents the parameter. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action — 'Check progress of a validation job' — with a clear resource and a distinct purpose. It differentiates itself from siblings like get_validation_results by focusing on status/progress rather than final outputs. The polling instruction further reinforces the tool's role in the validation lifecycle.

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 usage guidance: poll every 3-5 seconds until a terminal status is reached. This effectively tells the agent when and how to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to switch to get_validation_results. The polling cadence and stopping conditions are valuable and clear.

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