Check a background job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so 'changes nothing' largely restates structured data; however it converts that into actionable polling advice ('safe to poll') and describes the two-phase return (status first, full result once finished), which is real behavioral context beyond 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?

Three sentences, no filler: origin and return behavior first, listing mode next, safety last. Every sentence earns its place.

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 a full output schema, complete parameter docs, and read-only annotations, the description only needs to cover origin, modes, and polling safety – and it does all three. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly 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 schema itself already documents the optional job_id and the omit-to-list behavior, so the description's restatement adds little. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('check a background job'), plus the origin relationship to start_job and both operating modes (status by job_id, list-all when omitted). An agent can distinguish this from start_job and the direct tools without opening a schema.

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?

States the triggering context clearly: it is for jobs created by start_job, and omitting job_id switches to the listing mode. It implies the alternative is calling the direct tool, but never says when to poll versus when to call the direct tool, so no explicit exclusion.

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