Read an async job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety and repeat-call semantics are covered structurally. The description adds useful operational context (this is the recovery path after a polling timeout rather than a re-submit), but says nothing about what a returned job state looks like or how to interpret it while no output schema exists.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the purpose is front-loaded ahead of the usage condition. Every clause carries information an agent needs to act.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, purpose and usage are complete. The one remaining gap is return semantics: with no output schema, the description could say what job states/progress it surfaces, which an agent polling a job would want to know.

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 is 100% and the single jobId parameter is already documented as 'Job ID or URN returned by Adobe.' The description only restates that lookup is by jobId and adds no format, provenance, or error-handling detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Read an existing Adobe async job by jobId.' The contrast with 'submitting generation again' implicitly separates it from the generation-heavy sibling set (generate_image, generate_video, etc.), so an agent can tell this is the read-status tool without opening a schema.

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 names the trigger condition ('after a polling timeout') and the alternative to avoid ('instead of submitting generation again'), which is exactly the anti-pattern an agent would otherwise fall into. Nothing about when to reach for this tool is left to inference.

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