ingest_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Check' and gives no information about authentication, read-only nature, rate limits, polling behavior, or what happens if the job is missing. This is essentially no behavioral 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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is so sparse that it borders on under-specification rather than serving as a complete tool definition, which limits its usefulness despite being concise.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least explain what 'check' returns or how the job_id is obtained. It provides only a minimal purpose statement and leaves critical operational context missing.

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 required job_id parameter. The description adds only marginal meaning by tying the job to index_company, but does not describe the parameter name, format, origin constraints, or what a valid job_id looks like.

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 verb ('Check') and a resource ('index_company job'), but 'check' is vague about what is returned or verified, and 'index_company job' is ambiguous without further context. It hints at differentiation from the sibling index_company, but does not explicitly distinguish the two.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The phrase 'index_company job' weakly implies this is used after starting a job with index_company, but there is no clear routing or alternative selection information.

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