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 elsewhere. The description adds nothing behavioral: it does not say whether the batchId must come from a prior bulk-extract call, what happens for an unknown or expired batch, or whether the status is terminal or needs repeat polling.

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 single sentence is duplicated verbatim, wasting half the text, and the remaining clause is a generic cross-reference. There is no front-loaded statement of purpose, so nothing is gained from the brevity.

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 no output schema, the description is the only source for what a status response contains (progress, completion state, errors) and how to act on it, and it supplies none of that. For a job-status polling endpoint in a large API surface, this leaves the agent unable to use the result meaningfully.

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 the burden, but it only echoes the ':batchId' path placeholder already visible in the name. The optional `query` object and its purpose are completely unexplained, leaving both parameters undocumented in prose.

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 is literally the same URL template as the title, repeated twice, with no plain-language statement of what the tool does. An agent can infer it polls the status of a bulk-extract job from the path segments, but nothing distinguishes it from siblings like get_files_extraction_status or get_files_bulk_document_import_parent_r_12e9c9e11463ea4ff1184cea.

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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no mention of polling cadence, and no condition for choosing between this and the other extraction-status siblings. The only pointer, 'describe_operation provides native request schemas,' is about retrieving schema detail, not about tool selection.

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