Research Status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the response shape (per-provider progress plus overall status). However it omits relevant traits for a status tool: whether the call is read-only, polling/rate-limit expectations, and whether jobs can reach terminal or failed states.

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 short sentences with zero waste; the purpose is front-loaded and the return contents follow immediately. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 simple one-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and roughly what it returns, which is enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around polling behavior and terminal states that an agent managing an async job would benefit from.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents jobId (including its origin from the research tool). The description adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('check the status of a research job') and clarifies output scope ('progress for each provider and overall job status'). It is distinguishable from siblings like research and get_results, but never names them explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'job ID returned by the research tool' phrasing subtly ties it to a prior research call, suggesting a poll-after-submit workflow. No explicit when-to-use, when-not, or guidance about transitioning to get_results once complete, so it stays at the minimum-viable level.

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