Get Bulk Job Status & Operations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The terms 'Poll' and 'inspect' indicate a read-only operation, and the explicit list of possible job states gives useful insight into the response semantics. It does not explicitly state non-destructiveness or mention polling frequency, but the verb choice makes the read-only nature clear.

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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the core action (poll progress) and then adds the per-operation inspection detail. There is no repetitive or filler content.

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 covers the essential purpose and behavior for a polling tool, and the schema fully documents the four parameters. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly saying to use it after submit_bulk_mutation_job and noting that operation results are paginated via after/limit, but these are inferable from the sibling list and schema.

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%, so the parameters are already well documented in the input schema. The description adds slight context by linking 'per-operation execution results' to the include_operations parameter, but it does not meaningfully extend parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 with specific verbs ('Poll', 'inspect') and identifies the resource ('bulk job progress', 'per-operation execution results'). It is readily distinguishable from siblings like submit_bulk_mutation_job, which creates jobs rather than checking their status.

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 implies usage after submitting a bulk mutation job, and the polling language suggests repeated checks. However, there is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance or mention of when not to use it, such as pointing to get_audience_operation_status for non-bulk operation checks.

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