poll_job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it polls repeatedly, blocks, returns the final result on success or the terminal status on failure/cancellation/timeout, and explicitly states it changes nothing. This is valuable context that goes beyond the annotation flags, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 two sentences with zero waste. The primary action and behavior are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the alternative tool is given in the second. Every word earns its place; it is concise yet comprehensive.

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 polling tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and that it is read-only. The only minor omission is a definition of 'terminal state,' but that is likely domain knowledge and not critical. The alternative and return semantics are fully covered, so nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% for all three parameters (job_id, timeout_seconds, poll_interval_seconds), so the schema fully documents them. The description adds no additional parameter meaning—it does not mention timeout or polling interval, but that is fine because the schema already explains them clearly. Baseline 3 is correct when schema carries the parameter burden.

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 ('Wait for an async simulation job'), a clear resource (job), and the expected outcome (returns final result or terminal status). It explicitly names the alternative get_job_status, making it easy to distinguish from the sibling that performs a single non-blocking check. No ambiguity remains about what this tool does.

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 explicitly says to use get_job_status for a single non-blocking check, implicitly directing the agent to use this tool when it needs to block until completion. This is a clear when-to-use versus when-not-to-use statement with a named alternative. It fully covers usage context.

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