Check a durable job, batch, or crawl

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that calls are free and never consume credits/quota, that polling can be done as often as desired, and that a per-second rate limit still applies. It also lists the possible statuses, which is useful operational context beyond what the schema provides.

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 short, front-loaded with the most decision-relevant fact (free/no quota), and flows logically from purpose to statuses to polling guidance. The only minor flaw is repeating the 'free' point in both the first and third sentences.

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 status-polling tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies the jobId source, enumerates status values, and covers rate limits. It does not describe the full response payload or retention behavior, but that is not essential for making a correct 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?

Both parameters are already fully documented in the schema with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat their meanings. It adds minor context by noting job IDs come from crawls, batches, or auto-promoted captures, but this is not substantial new parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the operation ('poll'), the resource ('a job ID'), and the sources of those IDs (crawl, batch, auto-promoted capture). It also enumerates the expected statuses, leaving no ambiguity that this is a status-check tool rather than a cancel or create operation.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: after a crawl, batch, or capture returns a job ID, and it explicitly says polling can be repeated freely. It does not name alternatives like cancel_job or state when not to poll, but the intended use is unambiguous.

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