Get Job Result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds non-obvious lifecycle context — that job records expire and finished results must be fetched promptly, and that a working job yields no result yet. It does not mention polling cadence or what happens if the job_id is unknown or expired (error shape), leaving a small behavioral gap for a read tool.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads purpose and return shape, the second adds the expiration constraint and job origins. No redundancy with the title and no filler wording.

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 an output schema present, return-value detail needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description supplies the missing pieces — job origin, expiration, and terminal states. Only minor gaps remain, such as handling of unknown or expired job_ids and whether the caller should retry or poll.

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 job_id parameter is already documented as the value a long-running tool returned. The description adds only indirect meaning by naming which tools emit job_ids, without adding format, expected value, or failure behavior for the parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (get the status of a background job) and enumerates the return states (working, completed, failed) with result or error. It also scopes the tool to jobs started by long-running tools on this server, which separates it from sibling listing/read tools like reindex, build_embeddings, and get_index_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?

Explicitly tells the agent to call this after a slow summarize, reindex, or build_embeddings call continues in the background, which is concrete when-to-use guidance tied to named siblings. It stops short of stating what to do instead when no job was started (presumably read the synchronous result directly), so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not pairing.

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