Get Link Check Results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating the possible status values (running/done/failed), which hints at polling semantics, but it does not say whether calling while 'running' returns partial results or whether failed jobs include error detail.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action and the status domain are stated immediately. Slightly redundant in restating status after already saying 'get the status', but efficient overall.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining the return payload, yet it only says 'status and results' without describing what results contain (e.g., broken links, counts, errors). Adequate for selection but incomplete for interpretation.

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?

With one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents job_id including its origin in start_link_check. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (get) and resource (link check job status and results), which clearly separates it from write-oriented siblings like start_link_check. It does not explicitly name the sibling it pairs with, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: the schema's job_id description mentions it comes from start_link_check, so an agent can infer this is the follow-up/polling call. The description itself offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or note about when it is appropriate to call (e.g., while running vs after completion).

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