get_request_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the status lifecycle (in_queue → in_progress → completed/cancelled), the fact that it backs a GET endpoint, and that it applies only to submit_request operations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, followed by the endpoint, lifecycle, and use-case distinction. Every sentence earns its place and adds either operational or routing information.

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 low-complexity, read-only polling tool, the description covers purpose, lifecycle, endpoint, and the sibling distinction. It does not detail response structure or error states, but no output schema exists and the annotations already cover safety. The remaining gaps are minor for an agent selecting and calling this tool.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It partially compensates by showing the endpoint template with {deployment_id} and {request_id}, implying both are path identifiers, and by stating that this is for submit_request requests, which indicates where request_id comes from. It doesn't describe value formats, but the parameter names and context are sufficient for correct invocation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Poll a request's current status.' It names the backed endpoint and the status lifecycle, and explicitly distinguishes this tool from get_model_request_status, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 says exactly when to use this tool: 'This is for submit_request requests on a deployment.' It also names the alternative for model API requests from run_model: use get_model_request_status. This is explicit routing guidance with no ambiguity.

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