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

While annotations declare readOnly/idempotent hints, the description adds crucial behavioral context: specific status enum values (pending/running/completed/failed), progress percentage return value, and cost characteristics ('Free'). No contradictions with 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?

Four sentences with zero waste: (1) purpose, (2) return values, (3) conditional next step, (4) parameter source + cost. Front-loaded with action verb and perfectly sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite lacking output schema, description fully documents return values (status states + progress percentage) and workflow integration. For a single-parameter polling tool with strong annotations, this is complete.

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% with job_id fully documented. Description reinforces the parameter's source (atlas_start_batch_gem response) but doesn't add syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 appropriate since schema carries the load.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Check progress' with resource 'batch GEM job' and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like atlas_get_batch_gem_results (for final results) and atlas_start_batch_gem (for initiation).

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?

Explicitly states workflow: use this to poll status, then 'When status=completed, fetch results with atlas_get_batch_gem_results(job_id)'. Also clarifies job_id provenance ('comes from atlas_start_batch_gem response'), establishing clear before/after relationships.

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