Get a background job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: recommended polling cadence and the prohibition on restarting an in-flight job, plus the fact that the result only appears once completed.

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 dense sentences: the first states what is returned, the second states how to use it. No filler, front-loaded with the return semantics.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so (status, then result). Coverage of status values is partial (only 'completed'/'failed' named) and parameter identity is thin, but for a simple polling tool this is close to complete.

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% and neither jobId nor organizationId is described in the schema. The description implicitly explains where jobId originates (from the starter tools) but says nothing about organizationId or the expected ID format, leaving a real gap for a 2-required-param tool.

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+resource (fetch a background job's status/result) and names exactly which sibling tools produce the jobs it reads. An agent can distinguish this from the discover_*/start_auto_clustering producers without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit operational guidance: poll every few seconds until status is 'completed' or 'failed', and do not restart the job while pending/running. Both the when-to-call and the when-not-to-act condition are stated.

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