get_paragraph_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the async-polling context, which is useful, but says nothing about what the status values mean, whether results are cached, or how freshness works.

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?

The purpose sentence is front-loaded and the Args block is compact. The parameter notes lightly duplicate the schema titles, but at 0% coverage that duplication 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out. For a two-parameter read-only status check with annotations covering safety, the description supplies enough to call it correctly; only the semantics of the status values themselves is left implicit.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema carries only bare titles, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. The Args block explains both parameters in terms of the notebook containing the paragraph and the paragraph to check, which is thin but meaningfully more than the schema titles alone.

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 ('Get execution status of a specific paragraph'), which clearly separates it from siblings like get_paragraph (content) or list_paragraphs. It implies the distinction from run_paragraph_async via 'after async run' but never names the sibling explicitly.

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 parenthetical 'useful after async run' gives a clear triggering context, effectively routing agents to poll this after run_paragraph_async. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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