Poll an asynchronous solve job

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility and does well: it explains the meaning of each status ('running', 'completed', 'failed'), what completed includes (solution and usage), and that failed includes error.code. It also mentions being free of charge, which is helpful context.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by practical status details. Every sentence earns its place—no filler or redundancy.

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 polling tool, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: when to poll, what statuses mean, and expected output content. It lacks details on invalid job_id or authentication, but given the simplicity and lack of output schema, it is reasonably complete.

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 schema already fully describes job_id (100% coverage), including that it comes from the 202 async response of solve_shift. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond restating this, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool checks the status of an asynchronous solve job created by solve_shift, using a specific verb (check) and resource (job). It also references the sibling tool solve_shift, distinguishing it from validate_shift_input and solve_shift.

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 provides clear context: this is the polling tool for async jobs from solve_shift, and explicitly advises waiting ~15 seconds and calling again while status is running. It implies the tool should be used after receiving a 202 response, though it doesn't state explicit exclusions.

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