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

Annotations only provide destructiveHint=true, so the description does add context: it discloses asynchronous execution, the JSONL/batch-api file requirement, and the discount tradeoff. It does not cover what happens on cancellation, auth/permission needs, or how to retrieve results, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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 zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the endpoint reference. Nothing redundant is included.

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?

With no output schema and full schema coverage, the description adequately explains the operation but omits the natural follow-ups an agent needs: what is returned (a batch id), how to poll status via together_get_batch, and how to cancel via together_cancel_batch.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema (endpoint enum, input_file_id, model_id, priority, completion_window). The description adds no format or constraint detail 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 and resource ('Start an asynchronous batch job over an uploaded JSONL input file') and names the underlying endpoint (POST /batches). The create-vs-list/get/cancel distinction is largely inferable from the verb, but the description does not explicitly call out its siblings.

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?

The phrase 'over an uploaded JSONL input file (purpose batch-api)' implicitly conveys the prerequisite that a file must already exist, and 'at a discount to real-time inference' hints at when to prefer this over together_chat_completion. However, no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative routing is given.

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