bulk_job_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the 'Read-only' sentence largely repeats structured data. What it adds is the framing that the job's origin is a bulk_* tool and that a non-final state is the expected precondition, but it says nothing about polling cadence, what state values exist, or what happens if the job is already final.

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?

Three short sentences with the purpose, precondition, and safety profile each stated once, front-loaded in that order. No filler and nothing repeated.

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?

With no output schema, the description at least names what comes back ('state and record counts'), and the precondition for calling it is explicit. It stops just short of being fully self-sufficient because the set of possible job states and the recommended polling pattern are not described.

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?

The description supplies no parameter detail at all, which matters given the reported 0% schema coverage at the top level. However, the nested schema does document both jobId (with format hint and '750' prefix) and targetOrg, so an agent can still populate them without the description. Baseline 3 applies since the description contributes nothing here.

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 precise verb and resource: checking the state and record counts of a Bulk API 2.0 job. It also anchors the tool to its origin ('created by a bulk_* tool'), which lets an agent separate it from sibling status/result tools like bulk_job_results and bulk_job_abort.

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 an explicit trigger condition: 'Use it after a start call returned a non-final state,' which tells the agent when to poll. It stops short of naming the alternatives (bulk_job_results for data, bulk_job_abort for cancellation) or stating the inverse case, so it is clear-but-not-exhaustive.

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