Get result status and metadata

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious context: downloads resolve through a single manifest URL and all files are listed in that manifest. It does not describe the status values or what happens on repeated polling, but that gap is smaller given the annotation coverage.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, and the payload summary is front-loaded ahead of the wait hint. The first sentence is a compressed noun list rather than a statement of action, which costs a little readability but no space.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full return-value burden and does so well, covering status, progress, counts, limits and download mechanics. The remaining gaps—resultId provenance and the possible status values—are meaningful for a polling tool but not fatal.

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 description's wait clause restates the schema verbatim ('Seconds to wait for a status change', max 10) and adds no semantics. resultId, the required parameter, is undocumented in both the schema and the description, so the agent has no hint about where a resultId comes from.

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 enumerates exactly what the tool returns for a result: status, progress, schema, row counts, window limits and download info, so an agent knows the resource and payload. It stops short of naming the sibling read_result, so there is no explicit differentiation between polling metadata and fetching actual data.

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 only guidance is 'Use wait (seconds, max 10) to wait for a status change', which repeats the schema constraint rather than explaining when to poll versus calling read_result or list_sources. There are no exclusions or alternatives named, so tool selection is left entirely to inference.

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