get_job_notification

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

The description 'Check completion-notification status' aligns with the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), indicating a safe read operation. However, it adds no additional behavioral context beyond what the annotations already convey, such as what happens if the job ID is invalid or whether the tool polls for completion.

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 tool's function. Every word is necessary, and there is no extraneous information. It is appropriately front-loaded with the verb 'Check'.

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?

The description is sufficient for a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema to explain return values. However, it does not clarify how this tool differs from similar siblings (e.g., get_job_status) or whether it provides notification-specific status versus general job status.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining the job_id parameter, but it does not mention parameters at all. The schema only provides the parameter name and type (string), leaving agents without guidance on format, length, or expected values.

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 action ('Check') and resource ('completion-notification status for a job id'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_job_status, which could cause confusion about which tool to use for job-related status checks.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_job_status, get_spool_details, or other sibling tools. An explicit indication of the tool's specific use case (e.g., checking notification-specific status) is missing.

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