get_job

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe, non-mutating call, so the description is not carrying the safety burden. It adds the lifecycle context (this reads state produced by start_export) but says nothing about terminal states, partial results, or error behavior for an unknown job_id.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The workflow anchor (start_export) is placed at the end where it does the most routing work, and nothing is wasted.

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 an existing output schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers what it does and where the input comes from. Only minor gaps remain (polling expectations, behavior on expired or unknown jobs) that a caller might want.

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 100% and the schema already documents job_id as 'The job_id returned by start_export', which is exactly what the description restates. No additional formatting, validity, or reuse guidance is added beyond the schema, 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Check the status of a job') and ties it to the sibling that creates jobs ('started by start_export'), so an agent can place it in the export workflow. It does not distinguish itself from the other read-only sibling (get_design_info), but the lifecycle pairing is clear.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: the phrase 'a job started by start_export' tells the agent this follows start_export. There is no guidance on whether to poll, how often, or what to do once the job reaches a terminal state, and no explicit exclusions.

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