Get Job Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, signaling a safe, side-effect-free operation. The description adds context about returning job states and progress, and implies polling behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, return values, usage guidance. No unnecessary words. Purpose is front-loaded. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns. It is complete for the tool's complexity level.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage with clear explanations for jobId and jobType (including an enum). The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 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 explicitly states 'Look up the status and progress of a background job previously started by...', clearly identifying the verb (look up) and resource (job status). It distinguishes from sibling tools like queue_document_analysis (which starts jobs) and cancel_job (which stops 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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Poll this after enqueuing work; use cancel_job to stop a job.' This tells when to use the tool (after enqueuing) and when not to (to stop a job, use an alternative). It also mentions the specific async tools that start the jobs.

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