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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine non-obvious behavior the annotations cannot convey: a Pending job 'continues independently of this connection', which tells the agent this is an async polling read rather than a synchronous result fetch.

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 tight sentences with the lifecycle caveat front-loaded after the core purpose. Minor overlap with the output schema in the final sentence, but every clause carries information.

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?

Return values are partly covered by the existing output schema, and the async lifecycle note is a strong addition. What's missing is the sourcing of batchId and the relationship to enrichment_list and enrichment_reconcile, which an agent needs to sequence these calls correctly.

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% — batchId has no description, no format guidance, and no hint about how to obtain it. The description never mentions the parameter, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap, though it does at least imply the tool is keyed on a specific job.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('a durable research job in the current workspace'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the neighboring enrichment_list or enrichment_reconcile, leaving the singular-vs-list distinction to be inferred.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance: nothing says to call this when you already hold a batchId versus using enrichment_list to discover one, and enrichment_reconcile is never mentioned as the alternative for resolving a settled job. The usage context is only weakly implied by the word 'Read'.

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