Get job status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value by describing the payload shape (progress, per-item outcomes, errors) and by noting the failure behavior for an invalid or unknown identifier. It stops short of documenting pagination or long-term retention of finished jobs.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler: capability and return contents first, then invocation routing and the error case. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, alternative and failure mode well. The only remaining gap is that the exact fields of the returned job object remain undefined, which matters since no output schema exists to fill it in.

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% and the schema already explains that job_id is the identifier returned by a capture or transcription queue operation, which the description essentially restates. No additional constraint or format detail is supplied beyond what the schema provides.

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 first sentence names a specific verb-resource pair (read status of a saved capture or transcription job) and enumerates what is returned: progress, per-item outcomes, errors. This separates it cleanly from sibling tools such as cancel_job, which is also referenced by name.

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?

It states exactly when to call it (after uoink_playlist or transcribe_podcast_episode returns a job_id) and names the alternative tool for the cancellation path. The routing decision is explicit rather than inferred.

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