Wait for Export Job

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, and the description adds behavior they cannot convey: the 60000ms default covers polling retries and is not the full MCP call, timeouts are recoverable (job id remains valid), and failed/expired/unsupported jobs surface errors with recovery details. That is real operational context beyond the structured hints.

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?

Four sentences, all earning their place, with the what-it-does and what-it-does-not-do front-loaded before the completion workflow and timeout recovery. Slightly dense with three distinct guidance blocks, but nothing is redundant 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 explanation, and the description still covers the complete lifecycle an agent needs: prerequisite job id, wait semantics, success next step, timeout recovery, and failure modes. Nothing required to invoke or recover 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 coverage is 67% (api_url undocumented) and the two described parameters already carry their own schema text, but the description clarifies the semantics of wait_timeout_ms as a polling-window budget including retries rather than a hard call timeout — meaning the schema alone does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb (wait) on a specific resource (an existing export_job_id) and explicitly negates two adjacent behaviors: it does not submit an export and does not download its file. That negative framing separates it cleanly from start_file_extraction and download_export_job without needing their schemas.

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?

Gives the full workflow: call this to wait, then use download_export_job to save the artifact. It also covers the non-obvious branch — on polling timeout, retain the export_job_id and call get_export_job or this tool again rather than submitting another export, which directly prevents duplicate-job misuse.

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