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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the completed-state requirement and previews the result contents, but it does not mention pagination, result size limits, or permission needs. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is useful but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed immediately by the critical prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 read-only retrieval tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it states the prerequisite, describes the returned per-address data, and mentions the summary and credits used. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter job_id is already documented as 'The job_id returned by submit_bulk.' The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

The description states a specific verb (Fetch), resource (per-address results of a completed bulk verification job), and scope (by job_id, with verdict/recommendation/reason plus summary and credits). It distinguishes itself from get_job_status by requiring the job to be 'completed' and pointing to that sibling for status checks.

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 explicitly states the prerequisite: the job must be completed, and it names get_job_status as the tool to check first. This gives the agent an unambiguous when-to-use condition and a direct alternative for the pending case.

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