get_parse_job_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states that it checks status but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as return format, possible status values, whether it is read-only, or whether it can be polled. This is a minimal description.

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 with no extraneous words. It clearly states the purpose and the source of the required parameter. Extremely concise and front-loaded.

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 status-checking tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details about the response structure or how to interpret the status. It does not mention possible states or whether the agent should poll. Slightly incomplete for a full understanding.

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 job_id description. The description adds a connection to request_match_parse, clarifying where the job_id comes from. This is slight extra value, but the schema already fully documents the parameter, so 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 the tool's function: checking the status of a match parse job, and explicitly references the originating request_match_parse tool. This distinguishes it from the many sibling tools, which focus on retrieving data or submitting actions.

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?

The description implies the use case: after calling request_match_parse, the returned job_id is used here. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the connection to request_match_parse provides sufficient context for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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