gbif_validator_get_status

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

Adds behavior beyond the annotations: validation runs asynchronously, so this is a polling operation that returns status, progress, and results only once complete. Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so this added polling/return context is the right kind of contribution; it omits only error/retry behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose followed by the polling rationale and return contents; every sentence is relevant. Minor redundancy in restating 'asynchronous' across the first two sentences keeps it from a 5.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming what is returned (status, progress, results). Missing details about polling cadence or behavior on an invalid/expired key are minor gaps for a single-key read tool.

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?

There is one required parameter (validationKey) with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already explains it as the ID returned by gbif_validator_validate_dwca. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 — 'Check the status of an asynchronous Darwin Core Archive validation job' — and frames the scope as polling an existing job rather than creating one. This cleanly separates it from the sibling gbif_validator_validate_dwca, which starts validation.

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 tells the agent to use it 'to poll for completion and retrieve results' after an async job exists, which implies the correct point in the workflow. It stops short of naming the alternative tool or stating what to do if the key is unknown/expired, so it is strong but not fully specified.

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