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

Description aligns with readOnlyHint annotation, adding API endpoint detail. Does not contradict annotations, but adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words. Efficient and clear.

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 simple, read-only tool with one parameter, the description is complete enough. Could optionally mention the return type, but not necessary given simplicity.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter (job_id). Description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it only references the parameter implicitly via the API path.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'retrieve' and resource 'single batch job', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like mistral_list_batch_jobs and mistral_cancel_batch_job.

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?

Implied usage clear: use when you have a job_id and need details. Context provided by sibling tool names supports differentiation, but no explicit when-not or alternatives mentioned.

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