Get Tracker bulk-change status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint, yet the description still adds the status state machine (CREATED → COMPLETE/FAILED) and the progress fields returned, which is meaningful given there is no output schema. It stops short of polling cadence or any terminal-state caveats beyond FAILED.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the operational rule; every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema or title.

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 single-parameter status-poll tool with no output schema, the description supplies the state transitions, the progress fields, and the error-recovery path, covering what an agent needs to call and act on it correctly.

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% and bulk_id is fully documented in the schema with an example, so the baseline is 3. The description only implies the id's origin ('after a bulk trigger returns an id') without adding format or validation 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+resource ('Current status of an async bulk-change operation') and names the triggering tools ('issues_update_bulk and its kin'), which separates it from siblings like tracker_bulk_issues_list and tracker_entities_bulk_get.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('Poll this after a bulk trigger returns an id') and a clear follow-up routing rule ('once it reports FAILED, call bulk_issues_list for the per-issue errors'), naming the alternative tool for the error path.

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