check_flow_job

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses critical behavioral details: the returned statuses ('running', 'completed', 'failed'), that it does not return results, typical duration expectations (training 5-15 min, etc.), and the instruction not to poll. This significantly enriches the agent's understanding of expected behavior.

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 succinct, front-loaded with the action and purpose, and each sentence delivers necessary information: status response, result exclusion, and usage guidelines. No filler or redundancy exists.

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's simple nature and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what the tool does, what it returns, when to call it, how often to call it, and where to go for results. The typical time estimates add practical context for user interaction.

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 input schema already documents both parameters with complete descriptions (100% coverage), including job_id's origin and job_type's allowed values. The tool description does not add substantial parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline expectation without innovating.

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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'Check the status of an async Flow job'. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool by stating 'Does NOT return results — when completed, call get_flow_results(job_id)', making its role unambiguous.

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 explicit usage guidance, including when to use it ('Check the status...'), when to use an alternative ('Does NOT return results — when completed, call get_flow_results(job_id)'), and a strong directive to avoid polling ('Call this ONCE, report status to the user, then STOP — do not poll in a loop'). This fully addresses usage context.

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