Check redaction job status

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining the full status progression, which statuses are terminal, and the recommended polling behavior. It also discloses that each document reports its own status, page_count, and error_message, giving the agent a realistic model of the tool's behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed only by high-value behavioral details: statuses, final states, polling advice, and per-document reporting. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition 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 single-parameter status-check tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the status model, terminal states, polling cadence, and the per-document outcome fields, so an agent has enough context to call the tool and interpret results correctly.

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 already describes job_id as 'The job_id returned by redact_pdf,' so coverage is complete. The description does not need to add parameter-level detail and does not repeat it; this is an acceptable baseline when the schema carries the meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check a redaction job's progress.' It clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like redact_pdf, redact_pdf_and_wait, and download_redacted, which perform different actions.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to check whether a job is still in flight and what statuses mean. It also provides polling guidance, telling the agent to wait seconds between checks rather than tight-looping. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling list and the status lifecycle make the intended use unambiguous.

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