job_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the return state machine: running | done (с result) | error (с error), telling the agent exactly what each response means. It omits poll cadence/backoff guidance, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence covering purpose, source, possible states, and the polling action, with zero 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 simple read-only polling tool with no output schema, the description supplies the job origin, the state values, and the poll-until-done loop. Reasonably complete, though it leaves the result/error payload shapes only loosely implied.

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?

Parameter count is 1 with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate — and it does by defining job_id as the id returned by build_advisor/seed_council/ingest_telegram, which the bare 'string' schema does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Статус фонового джоба по job_id') and names the exact producer tools (build_advisor/seed_council/ingest_telegram), which cleanly separates it from the many sibling *_status tools it could be confused with.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to poll until done ('Опрашивай, пока не done'), giving a clear usage pattern. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. loop_status/board_status) or stating when NOT to poll, so it lands just below the top.

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