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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing polling behavior ('wait: true polls until terminal'), enumerating the full status set (PENDING, PROCESSING, PROCESSED, FAILED, CANCELLED), and instructing the agent to follow llmContext guidance in results — all meaningful behavioral context not available from annotations alone.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose is in the first sentence, followed by focused behavioral notes. Every sentence earns its place, though the status enumeration overlaps somewhat with what an output schema likely already specifies. Slightly tighter than ideal, but very efficient overall.

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 batch-status polling tool with 5 well-documented parameters and a rich annotation set, the description is complete: it covers purpose, originating tool, polling semantics, terminal statuses, and result guidance. The output schema handles return-value details, and annotations handle the safety profile, so nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the schema fully documents all five parameters (wait, batchId, environment, waitSeconds, workspaceId), including enum constraints and format hints like bpr_... IDs. The description adds only the 'wait: true polls until terminal' usage hint, which is a minor complement rather than substantial new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get the aggregate status of an extract batch (extract group) submitted by run_extract_batch.' This precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_extract_run (single-run status) and list_extract_runs (listing runs). An agent can tell what this tool is for 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?

The description clearly ties the tool to its companion producer, run_extract_batch, and gives concrete usage guidance for the wait parameter ('wait: true polls until terminal'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_extract_run or cancel_extract_run, nor state when not to use this tool, leaving some routing to inference.

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