mailveri_get_batch_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description discloses the concrete status state machine (QUEUED, PROCESSING, DONE, CANCELED, MERGED) and that a download link appears only when complete, which is behavior an agent cannot infer from annotations alone.

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 short sentences, purpose first and return contract second, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to enumerate return fields, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a polling tool it omits polling cadence, terminal-state handling, and the source of job_id, leaving real operational gaps.

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?

The single required parameter job_id has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain its format, where it comes from, or whether it must be a job previously submitted via mailveri_verify_batch. The description only obliquely implies a job identifier exists.

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 progress and status of an 'ongoing bulk email verification job.' This cleanly separates it from write-oriented siblings like mailveri_verify_batch and mailveri_delete_batch, though it never names a sibling or the tool that produces the job_id.

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 ... job' implies this is the polling tool for a job already submitted, but there is no explicit instruction on when to call it versus mailveri_download_batch_result, nor how often to poll or what to do after status reaches DONE.

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