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

Even with annotations already marking the tool as read-only and idempotent, the description adds valuable behavioral context: the tool is free, reports progress and summary counts, and the full result file lives in the ClearBounce dashboard. This goes well beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then follows with return behavior and user-facing guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition of the title or annotations.

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 tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is complete: it explains what the job is, what statuses/progress will be returned, how to present results, and where to find the full output file. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke the 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 for the single parameter is 100%, and the schema already states that jobId is 'The jobId returned by verify_bulk.' The description reinforces that connection but does not add meaningfully new parameter detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource: 'Check the progress of a bulk verification job started with verify_bulk.' It clearly identifies this as the status-checking counterpart to verify_bulk, distinguishing it from siblings like verify_email, find_email, and check_credits.

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?

The description clearly indicates the tool is for jobs 'started with verify_bulk,' which effectively conveys when to use it. It also gives post-call guidance to report the summary to the user instead of individual addresses, though it does not explicitly list when not to use it or compare it to sibling tools.

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