Check a bulk job

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, and the description adds genuinely new context: the three terminal/intermediate states, the fact that a result file is only fetched when download=true AND status is SUCCEEDED, and that rows are held in memory only (i.e. not persisted). It does not say what happens if download=true while status is still RUNNING, nor whether max_rows truncates silently.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the status enumeration, with no filler. The second sentence is slightly dense in packing the download gate, the status precondition, the row cap, and the memory-only caveat into one clause.

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?

The output schema relieves the description of explaining return shape, and the status/download semantics are covered. However, for a five-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, leaving ad_account_id and include_details unexplained and not describing behavior when max_rows truncates or when download is requested on a non-SUCCEEDED job leaves real gaps.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains download and max_rows (a row cap, in-memory) and implies request_id is the bulk job identifier, but says nothing about ad_account_id or include_details, two of the five parameters. Half the surface remains undocumented in both schema and description.

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 names a specific resource (“bulk upsert or bulk export”) and a specific operation (fetching its status), and enumerates the possible states RUNNING, SUCCEEDED, FAILED. It implicitly pairs with the bulk_upsert/bulk_export siblings but never names them as the tools that create the request_id being polled, so routing is inferred rather than stated.

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 download=true condition combined with status SUCCEEDED gives one concrete conditional path, but there is no explicit statement that this is the polling tool to call after pinterest_ads_bulk_export or pinterest_ads_bulk_upsert, nor guidance on when to stop polling or how it differs from read_request. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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