get_model_request_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by documenting the lifecycle states (in_queue → in_progress → completed/cancelled) and the queue_position payload detail.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence earns its place. It includes endpoint mapping, lifecycle details, queue_position behavior, and sibling differentiation without wasted prose.

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 one-parameter polling tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context: lifecycle states, queue_position, and alternative tool usage. It could have explicitly noted that the final result should be fetched via get_model_request_result after completion, but this is a minor omission rather than a blocking gap.

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%, so the description must compensate for the single request_id parameter. It does so contextually by identifying the request as a run_model request and showing the endpoint path containing request_id, but it does not explicitly state where the ID comes from or its format. Still, the meaning is largely inferable.

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 ('Poll') and identifies the resource ('a Model API request's current status'), backed by the exact REST endpoint. It also distinguishes this tool from the sibling get_request_status, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly states when this tool applies: 'This is for run_model requests.' It also tells the agent when not to use it and names the correct alternative: 'Serverless deployment requests use get_request_status instead.' This is clear routing guidance.

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