get_ingest_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this observes a background job and that the id originates from a background submission, which is useful. It does not state whether the call is non-mutating, whether repeated polling is expected/safe, or what happens after the job completes (retention of status), leaving gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

One front-loaded sentence plus a short Args block; nothing is padded. The 'Args:' formatting is slightly noisy for a single parameter but costs almost nothing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers purpose and the single parameter's origin. Minor omissions remain around polling behavior and lifecycle after completion, but for a one-parameter status tool this is close to sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate — and it does, explaining that job_id is 'the id returned when the job was submitted with background=true.' That adds real meaning (provenance of the id) beyond the bare 'Job Id' title 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+resource ('Check progress of a background add_documentation job') and ties itself to the sibling add_documentation by referencing its background=true submission path. That linkage distinguishes it from search_documentation, list_sources, and add_local_docs reasonably well, though it never explicitly names the alternative a caller might confuse it with.

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?

Gives clear context for when it applies: only after a job was submitted with background=true. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g. what to do for synchronous ingest), but the trigger condition is unambiguous.

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