Read TAP async job status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the useful behavioral fact that it exposes the current phase and links, which clarifies what the read operation returns. No contradiction exists, and no additional side-effect or auth context is needed 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?

The description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose, and it is appropriately minimal for a simple read operation.

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?

Given the simple read-only nature, full parameter schema coverage, rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It lacks explicit workflow context about when to poll status versus wait or fetch results, but the sibling names partially compensate for that.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters with clear descriptions, and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra semantics for jobIdOrUrl, url, or service beyond what the schema provides, but it does not need to because coverage is complete.

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 states a specific verb ('Read'), a clear resource ('TAP async job'), and the exact information returned ('current phase and links'). It is clear and unlikely to be confused with submit/wait/fetch/delete operations, though it does not explicitly name a sibling or state how it differs from job_fetch.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as starfetch_tap_job_wait, starfetch_tap_job_fetch, or starfetch_tap_job_delete. The sibling names imply a workflow, but the description does not state conditions like 'after submitting a job' or 'to check progress without fetching results'.

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