Get data export status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read operation.' is pure repetition. The one added behavioral fact — the response switches to a CSV download rather than JSON when the export is COMPLETED and download is requested — is also restated verbatim in the schema's `download` description, so the description contributes little beyond structured fields.

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, laid out efficiently with the core action first and the prerequisite second. The trailing 'Read operation.' is redundant against the annotations and is the only wasted text.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry return-value semantics. It covers the CSV-vs-JSON response mode but never enumerates the possible job states (e.g. PENDING, COMPLETED, FAILED) or what the JSON payload contains, which is precisely what a status-checking tool's caller 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 is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds provenance the schema lacks by tying `data_export_id` to the Export data endpoint and clarifying the optional-download toggle in prose. It does not explain `output_file` or `account`, but those are documented in 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('retrieves the status of a data export job') plus the conditional CSV download, and explicitly frames itself as the progress-check counterpart to the Export data endpoint. An agent can distinguish it from the sibling export_data and download_file tools without opening the 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?

It tells the agent when to reach for this tool: after calling Export data, using the returned `data_export_id` to check progress. There is no explicit when-not guidance or mention of failure/cancelled states, but the sequencing requirement is clear.

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