get_job

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: the full status vocabulary, the meaning of 'unknown' (interrupted write that may or may not have landed), the fact that nothing is retried automatically, and that status is derived from the source rather than a stored estimate. That is exactly the operational context an agent needs before acting on a failure.

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, then the status list, then the critical caveat about 'unknown'. The closing note about no fake progress percentage is slightly tangential but earns its place by setting expectations for the return 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the possible status values and explaining the non-obvious one, plus mutation-safety implications for retrying. Nothing needed to call it correctly or interpret its result is missing.

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 a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('jobId from confirm_action'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description references jobs produced by a confirmed action but adds no format or syntax detail 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?

States a specific verb+resource (poll the status of a long-running job) and scopes it to jobs started by a confirmed action, enumerating the concrete job families (Apple Ads command, review reply, listing update). An agent can distinguish it from the many other get_* siblings because the scope is 'jobs you previously confirmed', not reported data.

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?

Implies the context clearly: call this after confirm_action to track the resulting job, and the description explicitly tells the agent what to do when status is 'unknown' (check Apple Ads before resending). It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when not to use it, so it is strong context but not explicit routing.

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