Get render job

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description adds crucial behavioral context: expected render duration (1–3 minutes), the polling loop, and the finality of the 'not_found' status including the cost implication of re-firing. This is operational nuance not covered by annotations and directly informs agent 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it opens with the core action and return values, then provides timing and termination guidance. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers all necessary information: statuses, progress, URL on completion, polling expectations, and the not_found edge case. An agent can call this tool correctly without additional information.

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% with a description for the id parameter ('the job id, e.g. job_xxx'). The tool description refers to the id but adds no additional semantic detail beyond confirming it targets a render job. Since the schema already captures the parameter meaning, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Poll a render job by id' and lists what it returns (status, progress, served media URL). This uses a specific verb (poll) and resource (render job), and distinguishes it from other get_* tools that retrieve different resources (e.g., get_brand, get_drive_file).

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 description gives explicit usage guidance: poll repeatedly until done/error without asking the user, and warns that a 'not_found' status is final and must not be re-fired to avoid double-charging. It also sets expectations about call frequency ('several calls is normal') and identifies when polling is no longer appropriate.

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