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

Annotations establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context: it is a polling endpoint, the loop-terminating status value ('completed'), and the state transition to the results call. It stops short of disclosing polling cadence, terminal failure states, or whether results expire, which keeps it from a 5 for a long-running async job tool.

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 purpose and return contents, then the workflow directive. Zero filler; every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the return fields, the polling pattern, and the handoff to get_job_results. It does not specify error/interrupted behavior of a job or any backoff guidance, which would matter for a long-running bulk job.

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 is documented as 'the job_id returned by submit_bulk'. The description reinforces the same provenance ('by its job_id'), adding marginal confirmation of the id's origin rather than new format detail. With one fully documented parameter, the baseline is high and the description is adequate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Fetch the current status and progress of a bulk verification job') and enumerates exactly what is returned (status, percent progress, processed count, valid/invalid/risky summary). It is clearly distinguishable from get_job_results, its closest sibling, which is instead named as the follow-up step.

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?

Gives explicit workflow routing: poll this after submit_bulk until status is 'completed', then call get_job_results. Both the alternative (get_job_results) and the terminating condition are stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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