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

Annotations already mark this read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavior: it returns a `state` with enumerated values, includes per-user outcomes, requires matching auth, and enumerates expected error codes. This goes well beyond the annotation metadata without contradicting it.

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 compact, front-loads the primary purpose, and every sentence adds actionable detail: return payload, auth context, error behavior, and related tool. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description supplies the necessary return semantics: job state values and per-user outcomes. It also covers auth prerequisites, error responses, and the relationship to the blocking variant, making the tool fully understandable without additional lookups.

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 `jobId` and `timeoutMs` clearly. The description reinforces that `jobId` identifies the batch job but adds little semantic detail beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('current status and per-user results of a users batch job'), and clarifies the one-shot nature. It clearly distinguishes this from the related blocking wait tool by naming `ethora-wait-users-batch-job-v2`.

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 explicitly states this is a one-shot status fetch with no polling, and points to `ethora-wait-users-batch-job-v2` as the alternative for blocking. It also gives concrete conditions about B2B auth requirements, which helps an agent decide when invocation is appropriate.

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