get_search_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses useful behavioral details: it returns current state, message count, record count, and warns about pending warnings/errors 'since the last status check.' This indicates statefulness and what the caller can expect, though it does not discuss side effects or permissions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence provides value. It avoids fluff and is immediately scannable.

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?

Given the tool is a simple status check with one fully documented parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It summarizes what the tool returns without needing to restate the output schema.

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 already fully documents the single parameter (job_id) with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but because schema coverage is 100%, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 begins with a clear, specific verb-resource pair: 'Check the status of a running or completed search job.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like search_logs (which starts a search), get_search_results (which retrieves results), and cancel_search (which stops a job).

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 clearly establishes when to use this tool: to check the status of a search job. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of 'running or completed search job' makes the intended use case clear relative to search-related siblings.

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