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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower; the description still adds the authentication requirement ('Requires an API key') and that per-file results are returned, which annotations do not convey. 'Read-only and safe to repeat' largely restates the annotations, capping it below 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then lifecycle context, then the auth prerequisite. No filler or restated title.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description usefully characterizes the return value (status plus per-file results), which the agent would otherwise not know. It could say more about terminal vs. in-progress states or polling cadence, but nothing essential to calling it 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 single parameter's schema description already explains it is the job_id returned by submit_bulk_extraction. The description adds no format, aliasing, or validation detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (get status and per-file results) plus precise resource (bulk extraction job) and explicit provenance link to submit_bulk_extraction. An agent can distinguish it immediately from extract_sds, get_account, and submit_bulk_extraction.

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?

States the job lifecycle position (a job created by submit_bulk_extraction), which tells the agent when to call it, and 'safe to repeat' signals polling is acceptable. It stops short of an explicit when-not or naming an alternative tool for cancellation/listing, so not a 5.

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