get_job

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

Discloses that it returns results if finished or current status otherwise. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden; it is sufficient for a simple status check. No side effects mentioned but reasonable.

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, front-loaded with main purpose, no unnecessary words. Efficient and scannable.

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 simple polling tool with no output schema, description covers purpose, when to use, and basic behavior. Could mention response format or polling details, but adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds minor context: 'Use the type shown in the submitting tool's response' but mostly repeats schema descriptions. Little extra meaning beyond 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?

Clearly states the tool checks an async job started by specific sibling tools (verify_emails, find_email, find_emails). Verb 'Check' and resource 'async job' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings that start jobs.

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 says when to use: after starting a job with the mentioned tools. Also instructs to use the type from the submitting tool's response. Lacks when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context is clear.

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