get_search_job_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Get status') and does not mention any destructive behavior. However, it lacks details on required permissions, what happens with invalid job IDs, or any rate limits. The description is minimally sufficient for a clear read operation.

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 consists of two sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: the first states the core functionality, the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded, efficient, and contains no 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 read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and usage. It misses explicit mention of return format or error behavior, but the first sentence indicates what is returned (status/properties/messages). It is nearly complete given the tool's simplicity.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it only references job_id in context. The optional include_raw_content parameter is not mentioned. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'status/properties/messages for a Splunk search job', and it distinguishes this tool from siblings by specifying the context of use after run_splunk_search returns a job_id, avoiding re-running the search.

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 explicitly says to use this after run_splunk_search returns a job_id when polling progress or inspecting errors, which provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the implication is to avoid re-running the search.

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