search_bulk_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key behavioral trait: incremental polling where only newer results are returned via the since parameter. This is non-obvious and valuable. It does not cover job completion detection or error handling, but the core polling behavior is well explained.

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 exactly two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second explains the incremental polling mechanism. Every sentence earns its place, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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?

The description adequately explains the tool's main purpose and usage pattern, and even covers a subtle point (incremental results). Since there is no output schema, it would be helpful to mention what the response contains, but the phrase 'progress and merged organic results' gives a reasonable summary. Overall it's complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 input schema already describes both parameters (jobId and since) with 100% coverage, so the description doesn't need to add much. It does reinforce that jobId comes from search_bulk and since reuses nextCursor, but essentially restates what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: polling a bulk search job for progress and merged organic results. It uses a specific verb ('Poll') and resource ('bulk search job'), which distinguishes it from related tools like search_bulk that initiate jobs. The incremental polling behavior further clarifies its role.

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 description provides clear context that this tool is used after a bulk search job is created, and explains the incremental polling pattern (passing nextCursor as since). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool compared to other status polling siblings.

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