get_research_job

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

Rich behavioral detail beyond annotations: explains all possible statuses ('queued','running','done','error','not_found','stale'), their associated fields (result, cost_usd, error), and the 'stale' timeout mechanism. Aligns perfectly with readOnlyHint annotation.

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?

Well-structured with clear first sentence, bulleted status explanations, and minimal redundancy. Every sentence adds value. No fluff.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description covers input semantics, output status semantics, and edge cases ('stale'). Complete for a status-checking tool with one parameter.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description provides crucial context: 'job_id: ID returned by submit_research_job.' While minimal, it tells the agent exactly where to obtain the parameter. Could add format details, but sufficient.

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 'Fetch the status and result of a deferred research job,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_research_jobs' and 'submit_research_job' by focusing on a single job's status, but does not explicitly contrast them.

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 implies usage after submitting a job to check status/result ('ID returned by submit_research_job'), but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives like 'list_research_jobs' or 'submit_research_job'.

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