Jobs

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

The annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the description does not need to prove safety. It adds useful return-context by naming status, progress 0–100, and result, but omits job lifecycle, polling cadence, retention, and whether results are only visible to the job owner.

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 operational sentence is compact and front-loads the polling action and returned fields. The leading "Jobs." repeats the tool name and title without adding information, but the rest is efficient.

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 read-only job poll, the call mechanics are mostly covered by the schema and annotations. However, the description does not explain when to poll versus use wait_for_job, nor does it define status values or behavior for incomplete or expired jobs.

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 the schema already explains that id is the job UUID returned by async endpoints such as video and audio download. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, such as format examples or how to handle invalid or expired job IDs.

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 gives a specific action and resource: poll status, progress, and result of an async HuntAPI job. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling wait_for_job.

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 word "Poll" implies checking an existing asynchronous job rather than waiting for it, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or direct comparison with wait_for_job. The agent must infer that this is the non-blocking status-checking option.

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