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

Adds genuine context beyond the annotations: the job is asynchronous, it runs over an uploaded file, and it bills at a discount to real-time inference. However, destructiveHint=true is never explained (does the job consume quota, hold the file, cost money up front?), and nothing is said about job state, failure modes, or how long results persist.

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 compact sentences with the core action and the key constraint front-loaded. The trailing 'Together: POST /batches' is raw API trivia that adds little for an agent, a minor bit of waste.

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 5-parameter creation tool with no output schema and only a destructiveHint annotation, the description omits important follow-up context: what the call returns (a batch id/object) and that status is retrieved via together_get_batch. Adequate for triggering the call, thin for using its result.

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%, so every parameter (endpoint, model_id, priority, input_file_id, completion_window) is already documented in the schema with its enum values. The description adds no syntax, format, or default guidance beyond that, so the 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 (Start) and resource (asynchronous batch job) plus the required input form (uploaded JSONL file, purpose batch-api). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like together_get_batch and together_list_batches, 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 a real prerequisite (a pre-uploaded JSONL file with purpose batch-api) and the motivating context (async, discounted vs real-time inference), which tells the agent when this tool is the right one. It stops short of stating alternatives or exclusions, e.g. that real-time use should go to together_chat_completion.

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