job_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return shape (job_id and status) and enumerates expected status strings, which is useful. However, it does not state whether the call blocks, whether statuses are final, what happens for unknown job IDs, or whether polling is safe.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The status enumeration is long but directly relevant, though the formatting suffers from missing spaces after commas, slightly reducing readability.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the return fields and possible status values, making it callable and interpretable. It is mostly complete, but lacks explicit polling semantics and sibling differentiation, which would make it fully robust.

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 documents job_id as a UUID returned by process_job, and the description adds no additional meaning or constraints. With 100% schema description coverage, this stays at the baseline of 3.

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 a specific verb ('Check'), a resource ('status of an asynchronous DocuProx processing job'), and the returned fields. It is unmistakably a status-reading tool, though it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tools job_results and poll_job, which may overlap in purpose.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus job_results or poll_job, nor does it explain whether it should be called repeatedly or after certain job states. The asynchronous context is implied but no explicit usage conditions or exclusions are provided.

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