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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, but the description adds behavior beyond them: it is free, it long-polls for up to wait_seconds (default and max 30), and it answers immediately when the job ends. It also discloses the 10-minute polling cutoff and the fallback action, none of which is derivable from the structured fields.

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 return payload is front-loaded in the first sentence and every subsequent sentence is actionable rather than filler. It is a dense run of imperative clauses, though, and the wait_seconds default/max restatement is redundant with the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so concretely (status enum, percent, counters). Combined with the polling loop and cutoff guidance, an agent has everything needed to invoke and re-invoke this tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes further by explaining that wait_seconds causes the call to block until the job ends or the timeout elapses, which is the semantic an agent needs to choose a value. The '(default and maximum 30)' phrasing slightly duplicates the schema's minimum/maximum rather than adding new detail.

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?

It states a specific resource (a bulk job identified by list_id) and enumerates the exact payload the agent gets back: status values (queued, processing, completed, failed, not_enough_credits), percent progress, and counters. It does not, however, contrast itself with siblings such as get_bulk_summary, get_bulk_csv, or list_bulk_jobs, leaving the agent to infer which one it wants.

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?

It gives explicit operational flow: call, show status/progress to the user, call again, repeat until completed/failed/not_enough_credits, and stop after 10 minutes with the dashboard link. Both the continue condition and the termination condition are stated, which is exactly the guidance a polling tool needs.

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