Bulk job status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the polling nature of the call and the shape of the result (state, progress, errors), which matters since no output schema exists. It stops short of rate-limit or eventual-consistency details, but the added context is substantial.

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?

Four short labeled lines, each front-loaded with the key information. No filler; the purpose, exclusion, return shape and trigger each appear once.

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 read-only polling tool with no output schema, the description covers identity, sibling routing and return shape adequately. Only the jobId semantics and any polling cadence guidance are 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter (jobId) is never mentioned in the description. The name is largely self-explanatory, but with one required parameter undocumented, the description does not compensate for the coverage gap and sits at the baseline.

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 and resource (check a bulk subscribe/unsubscribe/delete job's progress) and explicitly scopes what it is not for (import jobs). An agent can distinguish it from the many bulk operation siblings 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 exclusion with the correct alternative ('Not for: Import jobs, which are polled with plunk_get_import_status') and an explicit trigger ('Use when: After starting a bulk operation, to confirm it completed'). Nothing is left to inference.

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