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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the description is free to add the valuable part: the full set of terminal and in-flight status values plus the conditional output_file_id / error_file_id fields, which tells the agent how to interpret a completed vs failed job. Missing only operational notes such as polling cadence or rate limits.

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?

One tightly packed sentence front-loads the verb, the return payload, and the status domain, followed by a short endpoint reference. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information comes first.

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, the description properly compensates by naming the returned fields and the status enum, which is what an agent needs to branch on results. A brief note on polling behavior or the lifetime of expired/cancelled jobs would make it fully complete.

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% for the single batch_id parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description does not extend the meaning of batch_id (e.g. where to obtain it) beyond what the schema already states.

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 ("Fetch one batch job") and enumerates exactly what is returned (status, progress, output_file_id / error_file_id), which cleanly separates it from together_list_batches and together_create_batch. An agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of status/progress/output_file_id makes it obvious this is the polling tool after create_batch, but the description never says when to use it instead of list_batches or what to do while status is VALIDATING/IN_PROGRESS. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are given.

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