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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses concurrency of up to four items, per-item success/error retention with input indices, retry behavior, rate limits, funded-token requirements, and per-item/question billing. This is exactly the kind of operational context an agent needs before invoking a metered batch tool.

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 description is front-loaded with the core operation and remains dense but purposeful throughout. Each sentence adds operational or usage-relevant information without redundant restatement.

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?

Given the complex nested input schema, lack of output schema, and lack of annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains result structure, error handling, concurrency, limits, auth/billing, and billing model so an agent can invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 the schema already documents the states and questions parameters in detail. The description reinforces the 1–100 state limit and 1–10 typed questions but adds little parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states a specific batch operation: classify, screen, triage, rank, or bulk-label up to 100 independent text states using the same typed questions. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from sibling tools such as seb_decide or seb_route.

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 gives clear usage context, including batch size limits, independent-item semantics, error inspection, retry guidance, rate limits, and funding requirements. However, it does not explicitly say when to use a sibling tool instead of this batch version.

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