Get data deletion job

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value by enumerating the possible job states (QUEUED|COMPLETED|FAILED), which is not present in the schema or annotations, but it omits polling expectations, what a FAILED state implies, and any error behavior.

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?

A single short sentence that leads with the verb and resource and appends the enumeration inline. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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 one-parameter read tool with safety annotations, the core is covered, and the status enumeration partially compensates for the missing output schema. However, the origin of job_id and the polling workflow are absent, which an agent needs to use this tool correctly in sequence.

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 0% for the single job_id parameter, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains where job_id comes from (presumably the create_data_deletion_job response) or its format, leaving the agent to infer this.

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 (Get) and resource (data deletion job), and the parenthetical enumerates the possible statuses, which sharpens what 'status' means. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like reddit_ads_create_data_deletion_job, but the verb/resource pair is unambiguous enough that an agent can separate read-status from job creation.

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 when-to-use guidance is given. It never says to call this after create_data_deletion_job to poll progress, never mentions whether polling is expected or how often, and doesn't name any alternative for other job types (e.g. get_poster_job, get_post_job). The usage is only implied by the noun.

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