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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses critical behavior: returns a batchId immediately, has NO batch-get endpoint, and requires polling via list_workflow_runs. The 'do not re-submit' warning complements the idempotentHint=false annotation with concrete guidance.

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?

Two sentences carry all essential information: the action, the limit, the immediate return, the missing endpoint, the tracking mechanism, and the re-submission warning. No filler or repeated 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?

For a complex nested-parameter tool, the description covers the batch lifecycle completely: submission, immediate response, progress tracking, and the absence of a get-endpoint. The output schema can handle return-value details, so nothing essential 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 all parameters are already documented in detail. The description adds batch-level context (1000 docs, batchId) but no param-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides. 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 ('Submit'), a specific resource ('a batch of workflow runs'), and an explicit scope ('up to 1,000 documents'). This clearly differentiates it from the single-run sibling run_workflow and from other batch tools like run_extract_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?

The description directly tells the agent how to track progress after submission: 'track progress with list_workflow_runs filtered by batchId'. It also warns 'do not re-submit the documents', which is an important usage constraint. It doesn't explicitly contrast with run_workflow, but the batch context is clear enough.

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