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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the polling behavior ('wait: true polls until terminal'), the set of statuses (PENDING, PROCESSING, PROCESSED, FAILED, CANCELLED), and the instruction not to re-submit. This goes beyond what annotations state, though the polling semantics are also echoed in the wait parameter description.

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 information-dense. Each sentence serves a purpose: purpose, statuses, polling guidance, alternative for individual runs, and a documentation reference. It is front-loaded with the core function and immediately gives actionable instructions, with zero filler.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, output schema present), the description covers everything an agent needs: how to poll, what statuses to expect, what to do on non-terminal results, and where to find per-run errors. The output schema handles return-value structure, so nothing critical 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 already documents every parameter (batchId, environment, workspaceId, wait, waitSeconds). The description mentions 'batchId' coming from run_parse_batch and 'wait: true' behavior, but these are also present in the schema descriptions. No additional parameter semantics are added beyond the schema, so a 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the aggregate status of a parse batch (parse group)'. It explicitly differentiates from siblings by pointing to list_parse_runs for individual results and references run_parse_batch as the submission counterpart, so an agent can immediately tell it apart from get_parse_run or list_parse_runs.

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 gives explicit usage instructions: 'wait: true polls until terminal' and 'While non-terminal, call again with wait: true; do not re-submit the batch.' It also names the alternative for per-run failures (list_parse_runs filtered by batchId) and links to external docs for batch semantics, leaving no ambiguity about when to use this tool versus others.

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