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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint=false/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context by noting output is 'bounded summaries' and listing exactly which fields come back, which the schema/annotations do not convey.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return shape, followed by the alternative and a domain note. No filler.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields and notes boundedness, plus numbering semantics, giving an agent everything needed to call and interpret the tool.

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 limit/offset/projectId are already documented. The note that batches are 'numbered sequentially per project (1,2,3…)' gives domain meaning useful for interpreting results, but adds nothing about parameter syntax. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (List) and resource (a project's batches) and enumerates the returned summary fields (id, number, name, status, queue position). It clearly differentiates itself from get by framing output as 'bounded summaries'.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to `get` with kind batch when rationale/summary detail is needed, which cleanly separates the list mode from the detail mode. It does not, however, state any exclusion (e.g., when NOT to list, or pagination advice).

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