get_progress_asynchronous_action

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: server-side auth injection, throttling under LearnWorlds' 30-per-10s cap, retries on 429/5xx, and detailed non-2xx error mapping. No contradiction exists.

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 with a badge, endpoint line, behavior, returns, and usage guidance. It is mostly tight, though the first two sentences repeat the same idea ('Get the progress...' / 'Returns information about the progress...'), which is minor redundancy.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what it returns, how errors surface, auth handling, throttle/retry behavior, and when it is appropriate to use. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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 single parameter 'id' is fully covered by the input schema description ('Job id'), so the description doesn't need to add much. It does echo the URI template {id}, but provides no extra semantics beyond what the schema already offers.

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 the exact HTTP method and endpoint, then states 'Get the progress of an asynchronous action' — a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes the tool from the many sibling GET tools, none of which target async action progress.

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 'Use when' section explicitly says it is safe for speculative lookups and reporting, and warns it is not for changing anything. It references a matching write tool, though it doesn't name the specific sibling; the guidance is still clear enough to route behavior.

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