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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real behavior: pagination in chunks of 100, a download link per finished row, and a zip link when the batch completes. It omits how in-progress or failed rows are represented and what happens with an unknown batch_id.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and tucks pagination and completion details into a parenthetical. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not required, and the description covers the two things an agent actually needs to drive it: page size and cursor chaining. Slightly incomplete on terminal states and error behavior for a bad batch_id.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load — and it does for two of three params, explaining that the page size is 100 and that the output's next_cursor should be passed back as cursor. batch_id is left implicit, though the schema example makes it obvious.

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?

Names the resource precisely — the progress view of a fill_batch run — and states exactly what it returns: per-row download links plus a final zip link. It implicitly distinguishes itself from fill_batch (which starts the job) but does not differentiate from other polling-style siblings like get_job or get_fax.

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?

Clear usage context: this is the tool to poll after a fill_batch run, and the parenthetical explains how to page through results with the cursor. No explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. vs get_job) is given, keeping it out of the 5 tier.

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