Bulk Job Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds 'and progress' beyond a simple status read, but does not disclose behaviors like job lifecycle, polling semantics, or what happens before a job completes. This is consistent with annotations and adds modest value.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the core function. Every word earns its place and there is no redundancy with the schema or annotations.

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 tool with an output schema and robust annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. The main missing piece is explicit guidance about when to call it relative to job submission, but the schema's job_id source note partially compensates. Overall, an agent can likely invoke this correctly without much ambiguity.

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 coverage is 100% and the job_id parameter already has a clear description stating it comes from vri_bulk_lookup or vri_submit_job. The tool description only says 'by job id,' which adds no semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 identifies the tool as returning status and progress for a VRI bulk lookup job, and specifies that it is keyed by job id. Though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves', the meaning is unambiguous and distinct from sibling submit/lookup tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus vri_bulk_lookup, vri_submit_job, or other siblings. It does not mention that this should be called after a job is submitted or that it is for polling progress. Usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and schema.

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