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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results include processing counts and candidate summary data, but with an output schema present that content is already discoverable. It says nothing about pagination defaults, empty-result behavior, or failure modes for invalid ids.

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, no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded before the prerequisite. Every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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?

With annotations covering safety, an output schema covering return values, and 80% schema coverage on parameters, the description fills the remaining gap: single-record scope and the name-resolution prerequisite. Only the semantics of jobStatus filtering is left unexplained.

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 80%, so the schema already documents batchId, workspaceId, jobLimit, and jobOffset. The description adds nothing beyond 'by its id' and the mention of candidate summary data; the jobStatus enum is entirely undocumented in prose. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 one screening by its id, including its processing counts and available candidate summary data.' This distinguishes it from the plural listing sibling (list_batches) by emphasizing single-record retrieval. The only friction is the name/title mismatch (get_batch vs 'screening'), which the description resolves but only implicitly.

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 an explicit prerequisite and alternative: 'Resolve a screening name with the screening list tool before calling this tool,' which routes the agent to list_batches when it only has a name. It does not state when not to use it (e.g. use get_screening_report for aggregate reporting), so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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