auction_job_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds almost no behavioral context: it does not say whether the job may still be running, whether failures are truncated, or whether checkpoint data is stable across polls — the kind of context that actually matters for a status endpoint.

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?

It is a single terse fragment with no wasted words, but that brevity comes at the cost of a missing verb and subject. Short is good here, yet the content is a return-value teaser rather than a structured statement of purpose.

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 required identifier, no output schema, and no documented parameters, the description should explain how job_id is obtained and what a status response means for the caller. Instead it provides only a comma-separated list of fields, leaving the agent under-informed for even this simple tool.

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 0% — the single required job_id has no description and carries only a regex pattern. The description never mentions job_id, its provenance (presumably returned by auction_collect), or what form it takes, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 is a noun fragment ('저장 건수·누적 요청·체크포인트·실패 요약') that lists the contents of a status report but never states the action or the resource — no verb like 'retrieves job status'. It hints at what the status contains, yet an agent must infer from the tool name that this reports on a collection job, and nothing ties it to the auction_collect sibling that presumably creates the job.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus auction_collect or auction_export, no mention of polling a running job, and no statement of prerequisites beyond the implicit job_id. The agent is left to infer the entire usage pattern from the name alone.

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