get_job_status

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is for long-running operations, returns progress and result location, and implies polling behavior. Lacks details on side effects or idempotency, but sufficient for a read-only status check.

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?

Two sentences, no extraneous words. Front-loaded with purpose and examples, followed by usage and return information. Every sentence adds value.

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?

No output schema, but description mentions return values (progress percentage, result location). Lacks explicit status enum or error behavior, but adequate for a simple polling tool given sibling tools don't overlap.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter (jobId) with a clear description ('Job ID returned by the initiating tool'). The tool description reinforces the polling context but adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 ('Check the status') and resource ('long-running async operation'), with concrete examples (compliance scan, report generation, DSAR), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools that handle files or other operations.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (polling async operations) and what to expect (statuses 'completed' or 'failed'), but does not mention when not to use or provide alternative tools, though none are needed given its unique purpose.

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