job_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it does disclose the possible status values plus the handoff to job_result. It does not mention polling or error behavior, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return structure.

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?

Three short, purposeful sentences: the core function, the conditional next step, and the parameter definition. No filler or repetitive restatement.

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?

For a single-parameter status-check tool with an output schema, this description covers purpose, possible states, parameter origin, and related-tool flow. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 schema provides zero parameter documentation (0% coverage), so the description is the sole source. It explains that job_id is the value returned by the tool that started the job, which is precisely the provenance information an agent needs to fill the parameter correctly.

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 action — informing whether a background job is pending, running, done, or failed — and distinguishes job_status from the sibling job_result by indicating that job_result is the follow-up for output. This makes the tool's role unambiguous.

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 explicitly names the alternative tool (job_result) and the exact condition for switching to it: when the status is done. This gives the agent a clear when-to-use/next-step rule without requiring inference.

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