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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the auth model and required scope, which is real added value, but it omits pagination behavior, what status values or progress semantics look like, and what happens for a pending, failed, or nonexistent batch.

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 resource and return fields, then the auth requirements. No filler and nothing buried.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description usefully previews the returned fields and covers authentication and scope. It is nearly complete; the missing piece is how to interpret status/progress and how it differs from the batch-results sibling.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented in the schema as the public UUID from submit_batch or list_batches. The description only restates the identifier in prose, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource and enumerates what is returned (status, progress, and aggregated results). It is clear on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from the close siblings get_batch_results and list_batches, which is exactly where an agent would hesitate.

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?

It states the preconditions (caller's own session bearer, results:read scope), which is useful routing context, but gives no explicit guidance on when to call this versus get_batch_results or list_batches. Usage is only implied by the return-field list.

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