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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world behavior. The description adds genuinely useful context on top: it returns a batch_run_id for progress tracking, every node executes once per input set, and result locks (update_flow locked) do not apply. It stops short of describing failure handling or result readiness timing.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with zero waste: purpose first, parameter mechanics second, edge-case caveat last. Nothing is redundant.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by disclosing the return value (batch_run_id) and the lock interaction. Combined with full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already includes a worked example for the inputs map, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly restates the array-of-file-URLs structure; its only real addition is tracing those URLs to upload_file.

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?

States a specific verb (Run) plus resource and mode (a flow in batch mode with multiple input file sets), which cleanly separates it from run_flow and get_batch_status. An agent can identify the tool's job without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear usage context (batch mode over multiple input file sets) and names the prerequisite upload_file for producing the file URLs. It does not explicitly name run_flow as the single-run alternative or state when batch mode is inappropriate, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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