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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only' in the description only restates structured data. It adds no new behavioral context such as polling guidance, whether terminal states are reported, or how in-flight batches behave.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition and followed only by a safety note. Nothing wasted.

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?

Output schema covers return values and the schema covers parameters, so what remains is mostly present. Only minor gaps: no note on polling cadence or what to do while a batch is still processing.

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%: batch_id documents where it comes from ('from list_batches or submit_batch. Never guess an ID') and batch_type documents the enum. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: checking whether a bulk job has finished and its progress. It's clearly distinguishable from list_batches (enumerate), submit_batch (create) and cancel_batch (abort), though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Gives an intent-based trigger ('when the user asks whether a bulk job has finished or how far it is'), which is a solid usage cue. It stops short of naming alternatives (list_batches, get_batch_sample_file) or stating when not to use it.

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