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

The annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: the polling semantics of wait, the exact status set, the terminal versus non-terminal distinction, and where to find per-run failures. This gives the agent an accurate model of how the call behaves over time.

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: four sentences that front-load the core purpose, then cover statuses, retry behavior, per-run results, and documentation. Every sentence adds usable information and there is no filler or repetition of schema field descriptions.

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 rich annotations, full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the remaining context an agent needs: polling loop, status semantics, prohibition on resubmission, and how to obtain individual run results. The documentation link is an additional fallback for batch-processing details.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by clarifying that wait: true polls until terminal status and that callers should re-invoke with wait: true while non-terminal. It also ties batchId to run_split_batch, though the schema already captures that. The description does not need to restate environment or workspace constraints because the schema covers them.

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 split batch submitted by run_split_batch. It also differentiates batch-level status from individual results by pointing to list_split_runs filtered by batchId, so it is clear how this tool differs from sibling get_*_batch and get_split_run tools.

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 explicitly explains when to call the tool again: while status is non-terminal, call again with wait: true. It also provides an exclusion by telling the agent not to re-submit the batch, and routes per-run failure details to list_split_runs, which is concrete alternative guidance.

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