job_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the job-family scope and sibling distinction, but does not describe output format, polling behavior, or possible errors. With annotation coverage, this is acceptable but not especially rich.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the key verb and resource, clarifies scope in a parenthetical, and closes with a precise sibling distinction. No filler or redundant restating of the schema.

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 one-parameter read-only status tool with full schema coverage and strong annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what kind of job to query and which sibling to use for provider request jobs.

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%, and the schema already explains jobId as 'Validation job ID.' The description reinforces the validation-job context but adds no format, source, or lookup details 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 uses a specific verb ('Check'), names the exact resource ('a VALIDATION job's status'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from llm_job_status. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and how it differs from its closest sibling.

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?

It states which jobs are relevant (jobs started by validate_with_models/ask_model/etc.) and explicitly contrasts with llm_job_status for provider request jobs. This gives the agent a clear when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use rule with a named alternative.

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