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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: request_ids are optional because account/client-scoped IDs can be recovered server-side, and it warns against resubmitting a paid batch before reconciliation. It does not describe the response shape (no output schema exists) or how partial failures are surfaced.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, followed by input semantics and a safety warning. No filler; each sentence contributes either selection guidance or parameter meaning.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool this covers when to call it, what the inputs mean, and the reconciliation workflow the agent must respect. The remaining gap is return-value semantics (per-scene status, failure representation), which no output schema supplies and the description does not address.

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 must carry the load, and it does: it explains that batch_id is the original batch ID and that scene_id is the primary key while request_id is an optional recovery aid. It leaves the nested scenes structure, the 10-scene cap, and ID format constraints unmentioned.

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+resource ('checking a storyboard batch's progress') and enumerates the cases it covers: progress, partial failures, uncertain paid batch responses. It implicitly separates itself from aimixer_batch_quote and aimixer_batch_submit via the 'Do NOT re-quote or resubmit' warning, but never names those siblings explicitly or distinguishes itself from the similarly named aimixer_status / aimixer_result.

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 clear trigger conditions ('Use this when ... progress, partial failures or an uncertain paid batch response') and an explicit when-not/ordering rule: reconcile completed scenes before re-quoting or resubmitting. What is missing is a direct pointer to the alternative tool to use for the re-quote/resubmit step.

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