Get Tracker entity bulk-change status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint, so safety is covered, but the description adds real behavior beyond that: the CREATED → COMPLETE/FAILED lifecycle and the instruction to poll until it settles. It does not cover retention or error detail of a FAILED state.

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 purpose and followed by the state machine; every clause carries information an agent needs for polling.

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-check tool with no output schema, the definition is nearly complete — purpose, trigger, and terminal states are all present. It could note what the response exposes about a FAILED operation, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% — the schema already explains that bulk_id is the id returned by entities_update_bulk, which the description merely restates. 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 (get status) and resource (an async entity bulk-change operation), and names the originating tool entities_update_bulk, which lets an agent place it precisely relative to the many tracker_entities_* siblings.

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?

Explicitly says to poll until the operation settles and ties the tool to the operation started by entities_update_bulk, giving a clear usage loop. It stops short of stating when not to call it (e.g., non-bulk updates), so not a full 5.

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