Get Job Result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: job records expire after a while, so results should be fetched promptly. It also explains the polling loop and the terminal state concept, which are not captured in annotations. It doesn't cover error handling for expired or invalid job_ids, but the key operational behavior is disclosed.

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?

Four sentences cover purpose, when to call, polling cadence, expiration warning, and source tools. Information is front-loaded with the core purpose first, then operational details. No repetitive or extraneous content.

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 single-parameter polling tool, the description covers all necessary operational aspects: what the tool does, how to obtain the parameter, polling behavior, expiration risk, and which tools produce jobs. An output schema exists to document return values, so that requirement is met externally. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 sole parameter job_id is just a generic string type. The description fully compensates by explaining that job_id is the identifier returned by a long-running tool in its 'working' status response, and instructs the agent to use that same job_id when calling this tool. With one parameter, this is sufficient and precise.

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 ('Retrieve') and clearly states the resource ('outcome of a background job'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the long-running tools by explaining that it is the polling mechanism for jobs started by summarize, reindex, and build_embeddings calls. The purpose is unambiguous and easily differentiated from siblings.

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 gives a direct trigger condition: call when a tool responds with status 'working' and a job_id. It also provides polling cadence ('every few seconds until the status is terminal') and a timing caution ('fetch results soon after completion'). This is explicit, actionable guidance with no need for inference.

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