Get Job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real behavioral trait: findings are only returned once the job is done, so the tool is a status/polling endpoint. It omits other important traits — what statuses exist, whether it blocks, error behavior for unknown or expired job_ids, and whether results are stable after completion.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the conditional clause is placed usefully right after the primary purpose. It is terse rather than wasteful, though the terseness is achieved by omitting needed context.

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-value shape need not be explained. However, for an asynchronous job-status tool the description should at minimum say where job_id comes from and the polling expectation; those omissions leave the agent without the workflow context it needs.

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 for job_id is 0%, so the schema gives only a bare string type. The description does not explain the job_id format or, more importantly, where to obtain one (presumably from a scan tool's start response), which is exactly the gap the description should fill.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('job status') and states the conditional payload ('if done) its findings'). The singular 'job' plus the required job_id distinguishes it from the sibling list_jobs, though it never names that sibling or get_finding explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance: nothing says to call this after scan_domains/scan_file, how often to poll, or when to prefer list_jobs or get_finding. Usage is only inferable from the noun 'job' and the parenthetical about completion.

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