catalog_get_adhoc_analysis

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

Annotations indicate a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds crucial behavioral nuance about the timing lag—that terminal status does not guarantee data availability—and explains the added fields (profile_ready and information_privacy), which is valuable context beyond the annotations.

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 slightly longer than minimal but front-loads the purpose and then explains the polling nuance and readiness gates. Each sentence earns its place, though it could be tightened slightly without losing essential detail.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It thoroughly covers the behavioral context, the exact feedback loop (polling until ready), and cross-references the related download tool, making it complete for a polling/status tool.

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 sole parameter 'job_id' is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), and its origin from 'catalog_run_adhoc_analysis' is also mentioned in the schema. The description does not add additional parameter-specific meaning, so a baseline score of 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 it retrieves the status of an ad-hoc analysis job and additionally reports profile readiness. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_job_status' by focusing on the ad-hoc analysis context and the readiness flag, making it unambiguous.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: the job reaching terminal status is insufficient, and users should poll until 'profile_ready' is true before downloading. It also references the same gate used by 'catalog_download_table_profile', providing a clear when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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