yandex_serp_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the status is 'durable' and asynchronous; it does not explain polling semantics, whether the call can be repeated safely, error behavior, or how job status transitions. This is minimal disclosure for a stateless-looking read 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?

One sentence with no filler, and the core action 'Return durable status' is front-loaded. It is concise and readable, although the term 'durable' could be more concrete without costing much length.

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 a single required string parameter and an output schema present, the description is minimally viable for a simple status query. However, it lacks lifecycle context (when the status becomes available, how this relates to prepare/submit/get_result) and leaves an agent to infer that job_id originates from the submission step.

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 only parameter, job_id, has no schema description (0% coverage), and the tool description does not compensate by explaining its format, origin, or relationship to yandex_serp_submit. It only implies a job identifier through the phrase 'Yandex SERP job,' which is weak semantic support.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a precise resource ('durable status for an asynchronous Yandex SERP job'). This clearly separates it from siblings like yandex_serp_prepare/yandex_serp_submit (job creation) and yandex_serp_get_result (result retrieval) without needing to open any schema.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this tool instead of related SERP tools. The asynchronous wording implies it should be used after submission, but the description does not say to call it after yandex_serp_submit or before yandex_serp_get_result, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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