get_bulk_request_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does useful work: it declares 'Read-only', enumerates the terminal and intermediate statuses, and warns that result URLs are 'short-lived'. However, it omits polling guidance (how often to re-check, when to give up) and permission requirements, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for a status-polling tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and the read-only property, followed by the trigger condition and the return summary. No filler or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description is not obliged to enumerate return fields, yet it usefully summarizes the status lifecycle and counts. Combined with the explicit trigger condition, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the absence of polling cadence guidance keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%; the schema already documents bulk_action_uuid as 'returned by any bulk tool'. The description's mention of the same provenance adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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 specific verb ('Check the progress') and resource ('v3 bulk request'), and the 'v3' qualifier plus 'bulk' scope cleanly distinguishes it from sibling reads like get_job_opening or list_applications. An agent can identify this as the polling companion to the bulk_* tools without opening the schema.

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: 'Use after a bulk tool returns a bulk_action_uuid (bulk job openings, custom field options in batches over 50)', which tells the agent exactly when this tool becomes relevant. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it (e.g. don't poll before a bulk call), so it does not reach a full 5.

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