get_job_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. It states the tool checks status but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only (implied but not stated), authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the job doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation and constraints.

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 two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what the tool does, and the second provides usage context. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and basic usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., error handling, return format) that would be helpful for an agent. Without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it only meets the minimum viable threshold.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'job_id' fully documented in the schema as 'The job ID returned from create_job_offer'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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: 'Check the status of a job offer' with specific outcomes ('see if the human has accepted, and if the job is ready for payment'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_job_messages' or 'mark_job_paid' by focusing on status checking. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar status-checking tools like 'get_activation_status' or 'get_payment_activation'.

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 provides implied usage context: 'Use this to see if the human has accepted, and if the job is ready for payment.' This suggests when to use it (to check acceptance and payment readiness). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g., vs. 'get_job_messages' for communication status). The guidance is functional but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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