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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that results are returned one page at a time and are optional, which is modest added context without explaining pagination termination, cursor behavior, or cost of large result pages.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, appropriately sized for a simple getter. It is efficient, though the terseness is part of why the parameters go unexplained.

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 four parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should explain the pagination model and the progress-vs-results distinction. It only gestures at 'one page of results', leaving an agent unsure how to iterate pages or when results are absent.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only hints at paging ('one page of results'). It says nothing about cursor semantics, the result_limit default of 50, or what include_results actually toggles, leaving three of four parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 ... batch progress') plus the optional result page, which is clearly distinct from export_batch. However, it never contrasts itself with the sibling list_batches, so an agent must infer that this tool is for a single known job_id rather than enumeration.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to list_batches or export_batch. The only implied usage comes from the required job_id in the schema, which the description never mentions.

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