Get export job status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some context about returned data, but not deeper behavioral details like pagination mechanics or error semantics. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 a single sentence with no filler and places the key verb and resource upfront. The run-on list of outputs and the slightly unclear term 'safe errors' keep it from being exemplary.

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?

The output schema covers return structure and annotations cover side-effect safety, reducing the burden on the description. However, the description lacks usage timing, alternative tool routing, and parameter semantics, leaving some gaps for a simple read-only tool.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not explain job_id, event_cursor, or event_page_size. The phrase 'paginated events' hints at cursor/page-size behavior, but the agent must guess how pagination works and what values are acceptable.

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 specific verb ('Returns') and enumerates precise output facets: stage totals, safe errors, retry state, verified paths, and paginated events. This makes the tool's function clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool, such as after execute_export_plan or while an export is in progress, nor any contrast with sibling tools like retry_failed_items or verify_yandex_upload. The usage context must be inferred entirely from the name and title.

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