Poll a bulk job (free)

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

Goes beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations with a materially important billing fact: the call is free, credits were already charged at submit time. That is exactly the kind of context an agent budgeting calls needs. It stops short of describing behavior when the job is still running or how failures surface.

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, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the cost reassurance, then the cadence rule. Nothing is redundant and no sentence is wasted.

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 return values need not be explained, and both required params are fully documented in the schema. The free/billing and polling-cadence context is the key missing piece from annotations, and it is present. Only the non-terminal job state behavior is unaddressed.

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% with descriptions on all three parameters, so the schema already carries the load. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., timeout_ms tuning or job_type echoing rules), 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 specific verb+resource (retrieves status and results of a bulk job) and pairs naturally with the start_bulk_job sibling referenced in the schema. It does not explicitly name the sibling it complements, but the polling/status framing is unmistakable.

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?

Provides cadence guidance ("Poll every few seconds, not in a tight loop"), which is genuinely useful, but never states the trigger condition explicitly (call after start_bulk_job until a terminal state). Usage is implied rather than spelled out, and no alternatives are named.

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