Check a job

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions downloading if finished, but does not describe behavior when the job is not finished (e.g., polling, error, status return), whether it blocks, or side effects like writing to the file system without clarity.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no wasted words. It is concise and easy to parse.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description provides the core purpose and usage but omits important behavioral details such as non-finished job behavior, error handling, and whether output_path is mandatory for downloads. It is adequate but has clear gaps for an async job tool.

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 all parameters have descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about downloading results and usage timing but does not add significant semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter.

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 looks up a job by ID and downloads the result if finished, which is specific and distinguishes it from the sibling tools that operate on documents. The verb 'look up' and resource 'job by id' are explicit.

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 clear usage context: 'Use this after a tool returned before the job was done.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the given guidance is sufficient for typical async job polling scenarios.

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