Submit an async bulk verification job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the async behavior, immediate return with job_id/status/URLs, inline completion for small lists, pending status for large lists, polling requirements, and optional webhook notification.

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 convey purpose, behavioral details, polling flow, and webhook option with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the main action, and each subsequent sentence adds necessary context.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the return fields (job_id, status, URLs) and the job lifecycle, covering inline completion, polling, and webhook notification. It is complete for the tool's complexity and usage path.

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 the description adds no new parameter semantics. It merely reinforces that webhook_url is optional and used for notification, while emails are the list to verify. This aligns with the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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?

The description explicitly states the tool's function: 'Submit a list of email addresses as an asynchronous bulk verification job' and frames it as 'the right tool for large lists', distinguishing it from other verification tools like single-email checks or synchronous batch options.

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?

It clearly explains when to use this tool (large lists) and provides a workflow: returns immediately, poll get_job_status until completed, then call get_job_results. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like verify_batch or verify_email, but the context strongly implies its use case.

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