get_attribution_job

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

With no annotations provided, the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the poll is read-only, what response codes are expected, or how to handle job completion. The mention of '202 response' gives context about job creation but not the polling behavior itself. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the core action.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action 'Poll async attribution job'. There is no filler or redundant content. It is appropriately minimal, though it could be slightly expanded for clarity.

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?

The tool lacks an output schema and annotations, and the description is very brief. It doesn't explain how to obtain a job_id, what the polling response looks like, or how to differentiate from the similar get_ingest_job. For a polling tool, this is incomplete guidance.

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 describes access_token and investigation_id but leaves the required job_id with only a type/minLength, no semantic description. The tool description does not mention or explain any parameters, so it fails to compensate for the uncovered job_id. With 67% schema coverage, the description adds no value to parameter understanding.

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 polls an async attribution job, using the specific verb 'poll' and the resource 'attribution job'. It differentiates from sibling get_ingest_job by specifying 'attribution', though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The phrase 'from attribute' is slightly awkward but doesn't undermine understanding.

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 implies usage after an attribute operation returns a 202 response (as indicated by the parenthetical), but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative polling tools like get_ingest_job. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided; the usage context is only implied, not directly stated.

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