check_import

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavior: it returns a media download URL and optionally a transcript 'once the job completes,' implying it may wait for completion. The read-only nature is evident from 'check the status.' It does not mention error handling, but the described behavior is sufficient for a status-check tool.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and return value without redundancy. Every word earns its place, and it is compact and clear.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the main return value (URL, optional transcript). It does not describe status values or failure modes, but for a lightweight polling tool, the description is sufficiently complete.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for the only parameter (jobId), and its description ('Job id returned by import_media') already defines it clearly. The tool description adds no additional parameter details, but the schema handles the semantics, so the 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 purpose: 'Check the status of an import_media job.' It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('import_media job'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_metadata and check_transcription, which target different resources.

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 tool is used to check jobs created by import_media, providing clear context. While it does not explicitly name alternatives, the sibling tools' names (check_metadata, check_transcription) indicate they serve different purposes, so there is no ambiguity about when to use this tool.

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