Check a bulk verification job

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavior beyond that by saying it returns progress and counts, provides full results when completed, and does not consume credits.

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?

The description is three short sentences with no wasted language. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by return behavior and cost information.

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 simple one-parameter read-only status tool with an output schema absent, the description covers purpose, returned information, completion behavior, and cost. It could add explicit polling or expiration guidance, but nothing critical for 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the request_id parameter is already documented as the value returned by verify_emails_bulk. The description adds no additional parameter format or constraints beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Check the status') and resource ('a bulk verification job'), clearly separating it from the single-email and account/usage sibling tools. It also identifies the returned object as progress, counts, and full results when completed.

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?

The phrase 'bulk verification job' and the schema's 'request_id returned by verify_emails_bulk' give clear context that this is used after starting a bulk job. It does not explicitly discuss polling cadence or when not to use it, but the usage context is clear.

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