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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description adds the ordering guarantee, the project-scoped visibility model, and the concrete return shape with a next_cursor field. That is genuine context beyond the annotations.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with scope/ordering and then the return and pagination contract. 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 supplies the response shape and pagination contract, and the schema covers all three parameters including the status enum. It omits any signal about how this differs from batch_status/batch_results, which is the remaining gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by explicitly coupling the returned next_cursor to the cursor input ('pass next_cursor back as cursor'), which the schema cannot express on its own.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List ... batch jobs') with stated scope ('this API key's project's') and ordering ('newest first'). It does not contrast itself against the batch_status sibling, which is the natural ambiguity to resolve, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not guidance is given, and no alternative sibling (e.g. spicrawl_batch_status for a single job) is named. The only procedural detail is the pagination loop, which is mechanics rather than tool selection.

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