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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the polling contract, the set of terminal statuses, and links to batch-processing documentation. Slight gap: the wait budget and clamping behavior are only hinted at via waitSeconds, but the terminal-state semantics are well disclosed.

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?

Dense but well-organized — the core purpose and polling behavior come first, followed by statuses, per-run failure routing, and a doc link. Every sentence carries operational value with no filler or repetition of schema 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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations carry the safety profile, the description fully covers what an agent needs: how to poll, what terminal states look like, how to avoid re-submission, and where to get per-run details. No critical operational gap remains for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds cross-parameter semantics beyond the schema: it ties batchId to the bpr_... ID produced by run_extract_batch, explains which polling parameter to use and when, and connects statuses to the wait flag. This meaningfully enriches what the schema alone provides.

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 and resource ('get the aggregate status of an extract batch') and names the submitting tool (run_extract_batch). It also differentiates from per-run tools by pointing to list_extract_runs for individual results, so an agent can distinguish it from get_extract_run and get_classify_batch.

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 explicit polling instructions ('wait: true polls until terminal... While non-terminal, call again with wait: true') and a clear negative directive ('do not re-submit the batch'). It also routes per-run failure investigation to list_extract_runs with a status filter, leaving nothing to inference.

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