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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing response behavior: it returns per-row download links for the first 100 finished rows and a zip link when the batch is complete. This reveals limits and conditional output, which goes beyond the annotations and is essential for an agent to understand the tool's runtime behavior.

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 a single, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Progress of a fill_batch run') and immediately lists the key outputs. There is no wasted wording, and every phrase contributes meaning. It is an exemplar of concise, well-structured tool documentation.

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 tool has an output schema and the annotations cover the safety profile, the description adequately covers the essential behavior: what the tool returns (progress, per-row links, zip link) and a key constraint (first 100 rows). It does not explain how to interpret the links or poll, but these are likely detailed in the output schema. For a simple read-only operation with one parameter, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. However, the only parameter is batch_id, which is self-evident as the identifier of the batch fill. The description does not explicitly state where the ID comes from (e.g., from fill_batch's response) or its format, but the name and context make it clear. It adds minimal value over the schema's type definition, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose: checking the progress of a fill_batch run and providing download links for finished rows. It names the specific operation it tracks (fill_batch) and the outcome (progress, links), which distinguishes it from generic job-status tools like get_job and from the batch-creation tool fill_batch.

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?

The description implies usage after a fill_batch call by mentioning 'progress of a fill_batch run,' but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_job or get_form. It provides context but no explicit exclusions or comparisons to other status/retrieval tools, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate scenario.

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