Get Niche Dive Status

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

The description goes far beyond the `readOnlyHint` annotation by specifying the exact behavioral contract: three possible `status` shapes, their associated fields (`estimatedCompletionDate`, `nicheId`, `tokensUsed`/`tokensLeft`, `error`), and the follow-up behavior on success. It also discloses that dives can take minutes, guiding the agent on expected latency and retry semantics.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: first the primary purpose, then the return shapes, then the follow-up workflow, then polling guidance. Every sentence adds operational value, and the length is justified given there is no output schema to describe the response variants.

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 no output schema, the description fully compensates by documenting all possible response shapes and fields. It also connects the tool to sibling tools for next steps (`list_niches`, `get_niche_keywords`, `get_niche_competitors`) and gives practical polling guidance. Nothing essential for correct invocation or interpretation is missing.

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%, and the schema already describes `diveId` as the identifier returned by `create_niche_dive` or `redive_niche`. The description reinforces this relationship and adds the nuance that a re-dive returns the same niche with refreshed data, but it does not add new parameter-level details beyond the schema. 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'poll a niche dive... until it finishes.' It clearly identifies the tool as a status-polling endpoint tied to `create_niche_dive` or `redive_niche`, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that create, list, or mutate niches. The return-shape overview further removes any ambiguity about what the tool accomplishes.

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 explicitly says when to use it: after starting a dive with `create_niche_dive` or `redive_niche`, poll until it finishes. It also advises on re-polling with `estimatedCompletionDate` as a timing hint. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the usage context is clear and sufficient.

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