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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new context: the call is free, the status values are enumerated, and progress plus completion-only summary counts are described. The only thing it leaves implicit is whether repeated polling is rate-limited or has eventual-consistency delay.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and cost, then the return shape, then the routing advice — a logical order with little waste. The enumerated status list is slightly verbose given an output schema exists, but it is cheap and clarifies the returned shape.

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?

Covers the full lifecycle an agent needs: the job is created by verify_bulk, this polls it, statuses and progress are returned, summary counts appear only on completion, and drill-down requires get_bulk_results. With an output schema present, it need not describe return structure further.

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?

One parameter at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already explains jobId; the description merely restates that it comes from verify_bulk. Baseline 3 applies since the description adds no format, constraint, or lifecycle 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?

States a specific verb and resource (check progress of a bulk verification job) and ties it to the originating tool, verify_bulk. The status/progress/summary breakdown makes it immediately distinguishable from siblings like get_bulk_results 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?

Explicitly says when to use this versus the alternative: report summary counts here, but call get_bulk_results when per-address results are needed. It also notes the dashboard download path as an out-of-band option, so the agent has a complete routing picture.

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