PRS job status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining that wait_seconds causes the call to block until job completion, and by noting what to read when status is done (html_link, result). This is useful behavioral context not present in annotations.

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 concise, with two short paragraphs. The first sentence sets the purpose, and the second provides necessary context about the initiating tools and usage. The list of four tools is slightly verbose but serves to clarify which jobs this applies to. No unnecessary 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?

Since an output schema exists, the description need not detail return formats. It covers the key flow: call with job_id, optionally wait, check status, and read outputs when done. It doesn't address error conditions or non-done statuses, but these are likely captured in the output schema. The mention of 'safe for Cursor' adds practical context.

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?

Given 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining both parameters: job_id is the identifier from the returning tools, and wait_seconds controls how long to wait within the call. It correctly implies that wait_seconds=0 returns immediately, reinforcing the polling semantics.

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 polls a long scoring/download job and explicitly references the four tools that return PRSJob objects. It distinguishes this from siblings like list_prs_jobs by focusing on polling a specific job rather than listing jobs. The verb 'poll' and resource 'job' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: call it with the job_id returned by the aforementioned tools, and explains the wait_seconds behavior (waits inside one call, safe for Cursor). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like list_prs_jobs, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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