Get Export Job

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds concrete behavior beyond them: it does not wait or download, it enumerates return content, and it warns that status/format strings may contain client-unknown values. The forward-compatibility caveat is a genuine behavioral disclosure an agent needs.

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?

Every sentence carries routing or disambiguation value, and the primary identity of the tool is front-loaded in the first clause. Despite being information-dense, no sentence is filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no elaboration, yet the description still summarizes them briefly for routing purposes. Combined with clear preconditions, alternates, and caveats, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 coverage is 50% – export_job_id is documented but api_url is not. The description compensates by characterizing the ID's origin and explicitly excluding task_id/document_id, which is more valuable than a generic format hint. It does not explain api_url, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 and resource ('Check one existing export_job_id') and immediately disambiguates the identifier type ('this is not an extraction task_id or document_id'), which is the key confusion risk given the sibling extraction tools. An agent can distinguish it from get_task_results and the export siblings without opening any 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?

It gives explicit routing: use wait_for_export_job if still running, then download_export_job once complete, and it warns to inspect exclusions/errors before assuming success. It also anchors the input to 'an export response or error recovery', telling the agent where the ID comes from.

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