get_search_job_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns 'status and results' but doesn't clarify polling semantics (should you poll repeatedly? Is it blocking?), what result states exist (pending/completed/failed), or whether there are rate-limit considerations for repeated 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?

Single sentence, no filler, gets straight to the point. Every word earns its place.

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 status-polling tool with no annotations and no output schema, description underdelivers. It should indicate what statuses/exits exist, whether the results are incremental or final, and relationship to the initiating search tool. The description is thin given the tool's polling nature which typically benefits from richer usage context.

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 100% and the sole parameter jobId is described as 'Lead search job UUID' in the schema. The description adds minimal value—it doesn't explain where one obtains a jobId or any format details beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema fully documents the 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?

Uses a specific verb 'Poll' with resource 'lead search job' plus status/results scope. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_autopilot_status or get_channels_status since it's tied to a lead search job specifically.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There's no mention that this pairs with an initiating search tool (likely search_leads or discover_companies), nor when polling is appropriate or how to handle completion. Context is implicit at best.

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