Check a job

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

The description discloses the key side effect ('save its results') and the conditional behavior ('if it has finished'), which goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It doesn't mention waiting behavior, but annotations lower the bar for extra context.

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 sentences with no filler; the purpose and usage context are front-loaded. Every word 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 tool has no output schema, yet the description does not explain what the call returns or how to interpret the outcome (e.g., what happens if the job is still running after wait_seconds, or what a successful save response looks like). This is a significant gap for an async job tool and leaves the agent uncertain about response handling.

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 all three parameters are already documented. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the general 'save its results' phrasing, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('look a job up by id' and 'save its results') and the conditional ('if it has finished'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes from siblings like cancel_job by describing a result-saving, not cancellation, operation.

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 gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use after a tool answered before its job was done.' This tells the agent when to invoke it. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough to select this tool over siblings.

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