check_research_status

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds valuable behavioral context: polling interval, terminal statuses, and that it retrieves a final report. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits beyond the polling suggestion.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then usage, and is generally efficient. The parenthetical '(Async research job status poll.)' is slightly redundant but does reinforce the async nature without wasting much space.

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 simple polling tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description provides clear cadence and terminal states. It could specify what the return looks like when not complete, but with no output schema, this is a minor gap.

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 single parameter 'job_id' is fully documented in the schema, including its sources. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond confirming the tool is used after deep_research_topic. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: check deep research completion and retrieve the final report. It explicitly ties the tool to deep_research_topic, distinguishing it from the initiation sibling. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other status-check siblings like check_deliverable_status or check_supplemental_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 clearly says to call this after deep_research_topic and provides polling frequency (every 10 seconds) and terminal conditions (until COMPLETE or FAILED). No when-not scenarios or alternative tools are mentioned, so it falls short of a full 5.

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