get_job_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by documenting the possible status values and their meanings (pending, processing, completed, failed, cancelled). It also specifies the polling behavior requirement. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling specifics that would be valuable for a polling 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?

The description is perfectly structured: a clear purpose statement, a well-organized status enumeration, and a specific usage instruction. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. The status list uses bullet points for readability without being verbose.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides excellent context about what the tool returns (status values with explanations) and how to use it (polling guidance). The only minor gap is lack of information about the return format/structure when status is 'completed' (though this is partially mitigated by referencing scrape_async as the job source).

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 100% with the job_id parameter fully documented as 'Job ID returned from scrape_async'. The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline expectation when 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 clearly states the specific action ('Get the status') and resource ('async scraping job'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like scrape_async (which creates jobs) and scrape_url (which performs immediate scraping). It explicitly identifies the tool's role in checking job progress rather than initiating or performing scraping.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Poll this endpoint until status is 'completed' or 'failed''. This tells the agent when to use this tool (for monitoring async jobs) and when to stop (when job reaches terminal states). It also implicitly distinguishes from batch_scrape and scrape_url which are for different workflows.

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