Get Bulk Check Status and Results

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses the shape of the payload (compact summaries of score, grade, providers, policies, technologies), the per-caller authorization scope, and the exact sentinel semantics for spfPolicy, dmarcPolicy, and mxProvider including the distinction between 'no record', 'lookup failed', and 'invalid record'. It even flags that the operation is free, which no annotation conveys.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and nothing present is pure filler. However, the second half is a single run-on sentence with deeply nested parentheses enumerating sentinel states, which is dense and hard for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple four-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, complete annotations, and an output schema, the definition covers scoping, result shape, and edge-case values well. The only meaningful gap is polling/refresh guidance relative to job state, which the output schema and annotations cannot supply.

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%, so limit, offset, status, and the jobId pattern are already fully documented in the schema and the description adds nothing further about them. The extra detail it does provide concerns result fields rather than input parameters, 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?

States a concrete verb+resource: returns status, aggregate counts, and one paginated slice of per-domain results for a single job, scoped to 'this caller'. That is enough to tell it apart in practice from start_bulk_check, cancel_bulk_check, and list_bulk_checks, though none of those siblings is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the caller is expected to hold a jobId from start_bulk_check, and the schema note reinforces that pairing. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus list_bulk_checks, or whether to poll it while a job is still running, which an agent would need to infer.

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