Notebook Query Status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by explaining the async nature, that it returns the query result when completed, and that it returns current status if still in progress. It also names terminal statuses ('completed' or 'error'), which helps the agent understand expected outcomes without needing to invoke the tool.

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 three short sentences, each earning its place: what it does, what it returns, and how to poll. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no redundant phrasing or filler.

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 polling tool with an output schema available, the description is complete. It explains the relationship to notebook_query_start, the expected return behavior, and the polling loop with terminal statuses. No critical information appears missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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%: the single query_id parameter is already documented as 'The query ID returned by notebook_query_start'. The description reinforces this relationship but adds no new parameter-level meaning. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema already carries the full parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Check the status of an async notebook query'. It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling tool notebook_query_start by explicitly tying itself to queries 'started with notebook_query_start' and describing a polling role. The name alone is also unambiguous.

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 context for when to use the tool: after starting a query with notebook_query_start. It also gives explicit polling guidance: 'Poll this tool every few seconds until status is completed or error.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative status-type tools, but the workflow context is clear.

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