get_job_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the response is deliberately compact (a lightweight read), but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or how a not-yet-existing/terminal job is handled.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The purpose and the key scoping trait (compact output) are both delivered immediately.

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 one-parameter read tool this is nearly adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema the description could have said more about what 'compact state and progress' actually contains or how failures are surfaced.

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 0% for the single job_id parameter, so the schema adds no meaning. The description only implies the parameter identifies 'one job' and gives no format, source, or expected value guidance, leaving a real gap it does not compensate for.

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 states a specific verb (get) and resource (job status/progress) and adds scope ('one job'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the full-response sibling get_job_result by saying it returns a 'compact' result, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is for checking one job's state/progress, which suggests polling. It never states when to prefer it over get_job_result or wait_workflow, nor any precondition such as needing a submitted job_id.

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