get_export_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of conveying behavior. The word 'Get' suggests a read-only operation and 'status/details' indicates what is returned. However, it does not disclose behavior for missing jobs, expired exports, authentication needs, or whether the call has side effects.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It leads with the verb and object, making it easy to scan, and every word contributes to the basic 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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse to fully guide invocation. It does not explain what details are returned, how job_id is obtained, or what the optional profile parameter controls.

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 adds no meaning to job_id or profile. It does not even state that job_id identifies the export job or explain the role of the optional profile parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('status/details for a Survey Solutions export job'), making the tool's core purpose clear. It does not name or contrast sibling tools like list_export_jobs, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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 use this tool versus start_export, list_export_jobs, or cancel_export_job. The description implies a status-check workflow but never states prerequisites or the recommended call sequence.

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