job_status

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive; the description adds that it is non-blocking and meant to be polled, and enumerates the progress/result fields returned. This is useful context not present in the annotations. It does not detail failure/error semantics, but for a read-only status check that is a minor gap.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the returned data and then give the polling cadence/alternative. Every phrase earns its place, with no boilerplate or repetition of the title.

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?

It covers what the tool returns (status, progress fields, result), how often to poll, and the blocking alternative, which is adequate to call it correctly. There is no output schema, so the explicit progress/result list is valuable. It omits status enumerations and error cases, but those are not essential for a simple polling call.

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?

The only parameter, job_id, has no schema description (0% coverage), but its purpose is closely inferable from the tool description's reference to 'an async job'. The description does not explicitly state that job_id must be the ID returned when launching the job, so it only partially compensates for the low schema coverage. The single self-evident parameter keeps this from being a 2.

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 identifies the tool as returning status, progress (current/total, percent, ETA), and result for an async job, which is specific enough to distinguish it from a generic status endpoint. It also names job_wait as the blocking alternative, making the boundary with a key sibling clear. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', and does not separate it from job_log, so not a perfect 5.

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?

It gives concrete polling guidance ('Poll every 10–30 s for long jobs') and explicitly points to job_wait as the alternative when blocking is preferred. This tells the agent both how and when to invoke it. No exclusion criteria are given, but the core routing question is answered.

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