mailveri_get_batch_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses the status state machine (QUEUED, PROCESSING, DONE, CANCELED), the 0-100% completion scale, and that a download link appears only when complete, but says nothing about polling cadence, whether repeated calls are cheap, or what happens for an unknown/expired job_id.

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 sentences, no filler, with the purpose front-loaded and the return information second. Every clause adds usable 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?

An output schema exists, so the description is not obliged to detail the response shape, and it stays appropriately light for a single-parameter tool. However, it leaves the required job_id's provenance and the polling workflow unaddressed, which is the main completeness gap.

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 description never mentions job_id, its format, or where the caller obtains it (presumably from mailveri_verify_batch). With one undocumented required parameter, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 ('Check progress and status of an ongoing bulk email verification job') and scopes it to a job, which clearly separates it from the polling-free write/verify siblings. It never names an alternative such as mailveri_download_batch_result, so differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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 'ongoing bulk email verification job' implies this is a polling tool used after submitting a batch, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The agent must infer the poll-vs-download split from the sibling list alone.

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