Catalog Get Adhoc Analysis

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses the delayed profile-attribute write, defines profile_ready via analysisTimeStamp, relates it to the gate catalog_download_table_profile uses, and adds the information_privacy/NLP enrichment behavior. This is substantial behavioral context, not schema repetition, and it does not contradict the 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?

The summary sentence is front-loaded and the second paragraph earns its length: it explains the race condition, defines the readiness flags, references the download gate, and ends with the exact polling action. No filler sentences are present.

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?

With only one parameter, an output schema, and safety annotations already supplied, the description covers the subtle timing gap, the meaning of profile_ready and information_privacy, and the correct invocation sequence. Nothing needed to call and act on this tool is missing.

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 sole job_id parameter is already documented as 'The analysis job id returned by catalog_run_adhoc_analysis.' The tool description adds only an indirect note about 'when the job carries a resource,' so the schema carries the parameter-semantics burden; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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-resource pair: 'Get the status of an ad-hoc analysis job, and whether its profile is ready.' It then sharpens the distinction from generic job-status tools by explaining that terminal status is not sufficient, so an agent can tell this apart from get_job_status and knows it is the readiness gate before catalog_download_table_profile.

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 gives clear context and a direct usage pattern: 'Poll until profile_ready is true, then download.' It also explains the race condition that motivates the tool. It does not explicitly name a when-not-to-use alternative such as get_job_status, but the polling instruction and download caveat make the intended usage unmistakable.

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