Check an extraction job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context — the polling cadence — which annotations cannot express. It does not mention failure/running states or that the call is cheap to repeat, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and immediately followed by the operational cadence and the success hand-off. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition of schema or annotations.

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 polling tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent when to poll and which status value triggers the next step, which is the essential information. However, it only names the 'succeeded' state, leaving the other possible statuses (running, failed, etc.) undocumented — the one gap an agent would care about.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents job_id. The description implies the id originates from a started job, but that is already stated in the schema, so it adds no syntax or format detail beyond the structured field. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource — checking whether an Evascrape job has finished — and names the sibling it hands off to (download) once the job succeeds. An agent can distinguish it from download and the other siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit timing guidance (call ~30 seconds after starting, then every 20-30 seconds) and the exact condition for the next step ('succeeded' → call download). This is a textbook when/when-next instruction with nothing left to inference.

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