get_search_job_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only implies the tool is read-only by describing 'Get status/properties/messages.' It lacks explicit statements about mutability, authentication, or error handling, though it mentions 'inspect errors.'

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus argument documentation. Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded with purpose and usage context.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain return values. It mentions 'status/properties/messages' but does not detail the structure or content, leaving a gap for an agent to understand the response format.

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 adds clear meaning to both parameters: job_id is explained as 'Splunk search job id (sid)' and include_raw_content as 'Include raw job.content for debugging (default: False).' This compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 retrieves status/properties/messages for a Splunk search job by job id, and explicitly ties it to the workflow of using run_splunk_search first, distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use this after run_splunk_search returns a job_id when you want to poll progress or inspect errors without re-running the search,' which clearly defines when and why to use this tool over alternatives.

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