job_result

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one useful behavior — that a still-running job yields a status instead of output — but says nothing about unknown/expired job_ids, error behavior, whether the call blocks, or the size/shape of the returned output.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the core concept (finished job output) is front-loaded. The parenthetical caveat is terse and earns its place, though the sentence would be stronger as an actionable statement.

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, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description does too little. It should at minimum explain that output is fetched by job_id and describe what is returned for a completed job versus a running one.

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?

There is one required parameter, job_id, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. An agent must infer that job_id is the identifier of the job whose result it wants, and gets no hint about its format or whether it comes from a prior submission call.

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 names the resource (a finished background job's output) and adds a scope note for running jobs, so the agent can guess the intent. But it is phrased as a noun phrase describing a return value rather than a retrieval action, and it never mentions job_id or contrasts with its obvious sibling job_status.

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?

It implies usage after a job completes, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and never names job_status as the alternative for checking progress. With a sibling tool that is nearly identical in name and function, some routing guidance was expected.

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