get_ingestion_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'check the status' without indicating whether the operation is read-only, what status values can be returned, whether it blocks, or what errors may occur. This lack of detail fails to provide adequate transparency about the tool's behavior.

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, direct sentence that immediately conveys the action and context with no redundant or unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and to the point.

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 status-check tool, the description gives essential workflow context (tie to import_source_metadata) and the schema covers the parameter. However, it omits details about the response content, possible status values, and any potential errors. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, this is a minimally viable description but leaves notable gaps.

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?

The schema has one required parameter (task_id) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention task_id at all. While the name 'task_id' is somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not explain that it is the identifier returned by import_source_metadata, nor does it clarify format or origin, leaving the agent to infer the relationship.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Check the status of a metadata import started by import_source_metadata.' This uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('metadata import'), and explicitly ties it to a sibling tool, distinguishing it from import_source_metadata (which starts imports) and import_and_wait (which likely waits).

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 provides clear context by referencing the originating tool ('started by import_source_metadata'), implying this should be used after initiating an import and specifically for status checking. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the workflow context is sufficiently clear for most cases.

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