get_job_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. Description adds 'poll' implying repeated calls are safe and stateless. However, it does not specify whether the call blocks or returns immediately, or describe possible status values. With annotations, bar is lower; a 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded with purpose. Efficient and no wasted words. Could be slightly improved with bullet points or explicit status list, but concise enough.

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?

Given a simple tool with 1 parameter and annotations present, the description is minimal but missing details like possible return statuses or whether it's a long poll. No output schema, so some behavioral info would help. Adequate but not thorough.

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 100% with a clear description for job_id. The tool description adds context that job_id comes from a previous transcribe_* call, which is useful beyond the schema. No additional parameter details needed.

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 uses the specific verb 'poll' and clearly identifies the resource: current status of a transcription job by job_id. It distinguishes from siblings like get_transcript (getting content) and transcribe_* (starting jobs). No ambiguity.

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?

Description implies usage for checking status after a transcribe call, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like get_transcript or list_recent_jobs. Lacks exclusions or direct sibling comparison, though context from sibling names helps.

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