get_job_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden, and it does state read-only retrieval and the kinds of output (status, results, error details). However, it does not disclose details such as whether the call can be polled, whether partial results appear before completion, or any ownership/authorization expectations.

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?

One sentence with no filler or repeated schema information. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the tool's meaning.

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 read-only status tool the basic call is fully specified, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves out workflow context: expected statuses, polling behavior, and the relationship to submit/list/cancel siblings. An agent could call it correctly but would have to infer the surrounding async workflow.

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 0%, but the single parameter job_id is self-descriptive by name and title. The description adds a small amount of meaning by tying the ID to an asynchronous job, yet it does not specify the ID's format or where to obtain it (e.g., from a submit_*_job response).

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 clear verb ('Retrieve') and identifies the resource precisely: execution status, results, or error details of an asynchronous job. This differentiates it from sibling status-like tools such as get_model_status and from lifecycle tools like submit_fit_mmm_job, cancel_job, and list_jobs.

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 phrase 'asynchronous job' implies use after a job has been submitted, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives such as list_jobs for finding job IDs or get_model_status for model-level status. The usage context is implied, not stated.

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