Get asset job status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds that it 'makes a network call to the provider but never spends credits' and explains the refresh behavior. This adds concrete context beyond annotations. It doesn't describe return format or error handling, but given the annotation coverage, this is sufficient.

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?

The description is compact and front-loads the core purpose and read-only nature. The status list is dense but comprehensive, and the sequential guidance is clear. It could be split into a list for readability, but it's efficient and every sentence carries useful information.

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 simple polling tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow: when to call, what statuses to expect, and the read-only safety. It doesn't detail error handling or response structure, but that's not critical given the tool's simplicity and the guidance provided.

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 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds extra value by explaining the 'detail' parameter's default and its rationale ('Defaults to false because full records are large and flood context on repeated polls'), which is not in the schema. This goes beyond the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the action: 'Check an asset job, refreshing it from the provider if it is still running.' It identifies the resource (asset job) and the specific behavior (refresh if running), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by tying it to the create/texture workflow and the subsequent download step. This is specific and 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?

The description provides explicit sequential guidance: 'Call this after create_3d_asset or texture_existing_asset until status is "ready", then call download_asset.' This tells the agent exactly when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_asset_jobs (which is for listing, not polling a single job), so it's not a full when-not-to-use, but it is clear enough.

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