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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses pagination behavior (API default limit 20, cap 96), the authentication model (caller's own session bearer), and the required authorization scope (results:read). It omits ordering guarantees and error/pagination-termination behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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 that leads with the action and resource, then adds auth and pagination detail without preamble. The parenthetical listing of output fields makes it slightly dense but nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully describes the returned row fields and covers auth, scope, and pagination limits. It leaves ordering and end-of-results/total-count behavior unspecified, a minor gap for a paginated read 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/batch_uuid are already documented; the description's restatement of the 20/96 pagination figures and the custom_id echo semantics largely duplicate schema text or describe output fields rather than parameters. 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 and resource ('Fetch the per-email results for a batch') and even enumerates the row shape (uuid, custom_id, status, score, verdict), which cleanly separates it from the sibling get_batch that returns batch-level metadata.

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?

Usage is implied by the description's framing (fetch results after a batch exists) and it names submit_batch/list_batches as the source of the batch_uuid, but it never states when to prefer this over get_batch or list_batches, nor any exclusion conditions.

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