check_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the polling mechanism and the local-then-remote API fallback, which is key behavioral context. However, it does not mention idempotency or error handling.

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?

The description is a single efficient sentence that conveys the action, scope, and lookup strategy with no wasted words.

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 one parameter and an existing output schema, the description captures the core functionality and fallback mechanism. It could briefly hint at the response type, but the description is sufficient for a simple poll tool.

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%, and the tool description does not elaborate on the 'job_id' parameter beyond the schema. The parameter is self-explanatory by name, but the description fails to add any semantic value or format guidance.

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 a specific verb 'poll' and resource 'single job', and clarifies the scope 'across account pool' with a fallback order 'local registry, then remote API'. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like 'wait_for_job' (blocking) and 'list_jobs' (listing many).

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 implies polling a single job but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'wait_for_job' (blocking) or 'list_jobs'. No direct usage guidance or exclusions are provided.

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