Submit Async Job

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

The description discloses important non-obvious behaviors: balance is reserved up front, the job runs in the background, and jobs bill the account that owns the API key. These go beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false) and help the agent set correct expectations. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 dense sentences with no fluff. The first sentence delivers the core action, resource, and limit. The second adds billing, background execution, and the status-check path. Every clause earns its place.

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 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and informative annotations, the description covers the key context: async behavior, balance reservation, billing ownership, and monitoring via vri_bulk_status. It does not explicitly differentiate from other bulk/sync sibling tools, but 'ASYNC bulk' and the status reference imply the intended boundary.

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%: both 'phone_numbers' and 'products' are documented in the schema. The description mostly restates max 10000 and NA/US-Canada scope, and it does not add meaning for the 'products' parameter. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Submit an ASYNC bulk lookup job.' It also specifies scope ('up to 10000 North American phone numbers') and highlights the asynchronous nature, which distinguishes it from synchronous lookup siblings like vri_number_lookup or vri_spam_check.

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?

It clearly establishes when to use the tool: for bulk async lookups up to 10000 numbers. It also gives operational guidance: check progress with vri_bulk_status and expect account-level billing via the API key. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so no exclusions are provided.

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