get_receipt_job

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

No annotations, but description discloses return format with possible statuses (PENDING, PROCESSING, COMPLETED, FAILED). No side effects noted, acceptable for a status check.

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-line description with clear Args/Returns structure, no fluff, front-loaded purpose.

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?

Output schema present, description covers status values. Complete for a simple polling tool with clear input source.

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?

Single parameter job_id with 0% schema description coverage; description clarifies it is the ID from extract_receipt_async, adding value beyond schema.

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?

States 'Check the status of an async receipt extraction job' with a clear verb and resource, distinguishing from siblings like extract_receipt_async and get_receipt_job_result.

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?

Explicitly mentions that job_id comes from extract_receipt_async, implying when to use. Could mention alternatives like get_receipt_job_result for completion.

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