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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the full status lifecycle (VALIDATING through CANCELLED) and the fact that file ids only appear once the job is done, plus the underlying endpoint. It does not mention polling cadence or retention, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 dense sentence front-loads the verb and payload, followed by a compact API reference line. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information (status values and completion-gated fields) 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 carries the return-value burden and does so adequately by naming the status enum and the conditional file-id fields. Combined with readOnlyHint annotations and a fully documented single parameter, an agent has everything needed to call it 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?

There is a single parameter, batch_id, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no format, sourcing, or example detail (e.g. where the id comes from) beyond the schema, 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 (Fetch) and resource (one batch job) and enumerates what is returned: status, progress, and the output/error file ids. The qualifier 'one' implicitly separates it from together_list_batches, so an agent can route without opening either 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 — an agent infers this is the polling/status-check tool used after together_create_batch. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative (e.g. together_list_batches for enumeration), leaving the routing decision to inference.

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