job_status

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that this is for validation jobs, consistent with annotations, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like response format or pagination. Given annotations cover safety, the description adds modest context.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action, no unnecessary words. Every part adds value.

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?

Simple tool with one parameter; description sufficiently explains purpose, context, and distinction from sibling. No output schema needed as status check is straightforward.

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% with a clear description of 'jobId'. The description repeats 'validation job ID' which is consistent but does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it checks a validation job's status, specifies the source tools (validate_with_models/ask_model/etc.), and distinguishes from llm_job_status, a sibling tool. This provides a specific verb+resource and differentiates from alternatives.

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 notes when to use this tool (for validation jobs from specific tools) and contrasts with llm_job_status for provider request jobs, giving clear guidance on alternatives.

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