poll_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that the tool blocks, polls repeatedly, and stops at terminal statuses or timeout. However, it does not explain what happens on timeout (error vs. partial result) or what the return value is, which is important for an agent invoking a blocking 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?

Two focused sentences with no redundancy. The core behavior and terminal statuses are front-loaded, followed by a succinct statement of purpose. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The schema is simple and fully described, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description does not state what the tool returns or how timeout is signaled, leaving a meaningful gap for an agent that needs to act on the outcome. It should also briefly contrast with job_status for complete contextual guidance.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents job_id, timeout_ms, and interval_ms with defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('poll'), a resource ('asynchronous DocuProx job'), and precisely characterizes the behavior: waiting until a terminal status (COMPLETED, FAILED, ERROR) or timeout. This clearly distinguishes poll_job from a single-status check like job_status.

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 says it is 'useful to block until a job is done without manual retries,' which gives clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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