get_board_export_job_status

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses an enterprise-only gate and an auth requirement, but says nothing about whether this is a read-only poll, whether repeated calls are expected, throttling, or what status values are returned — materially incomplete for an operation whose whole purpose is polling.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the eligibility constraint. Nothing redundant, nothing padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. But with zero annotation coverage, 0% parameter documentation, and no guidance on how the job_id is obtained or how to poll, the definition is only minimally sufficient for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0% for both required parameters. The description does not explain job_id (presumably from create_board_export_job) or org_id (organization scope/format), so an agent gets no meaning beyond the bare parameter names.

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 and resource — get the status of a board export job — which is unambiguous and separable from get_board_export_job_results and list_board_export_jobs by the noun 'status'. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is inferred from the resource name rather than stated.

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?

The description supplies a hard eligibility constraint (enterprise plan plus a Discovery access token), which is a real usage prerequisite. However, it never says when to call this versus get_board_export_job_results (fetching output) or list_board_export_jobs (discovering the job_id), and gives no hint about polling behavior.

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