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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful non-obvious behavior: the return envelope fields (`id`, `status`, `createdAt`, `completedAt`, `pricing`, `output`, `error`), the polling loop expectation, and the success output shape (`array of documents with markdown and metadata`). This goes well beyond what annotations 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?

Three tight sentences deliver the action, the returned data structure, and the operating loop, with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each subsequent sentence adds distinct value.

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 one parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the only missing operational detail: polling until terminal status and interpreting the output array. Nothing needed for correct invocation is omitted.

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 coverage is 100% and the single param `jobId` is described as 'The job id returned by the submit call.' The description adds little beyond that ('by its jobId' and the reference to the submit tool). The schema already carries the load, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Fetch') with a precise resource ('batch scrape job') and identifies the submission source (`post_firecrawl_batch_scrape`). The final clause 'Reads a job only; it cannot start one' clearly differentiates it from sibling creation tools like post_firecrawl_batch_scrape and complements the similar poll tool get_firecrawl_crawl_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?

The description gives clear usage context: it fetches a job created by post_firecrawl_batch_scrape, and instructs the agent to 'Repeat until status is terminal'. It also states a non-use case ('cannot start one'). It does not explicitly compare itself to get_firecrawl_crawl_job, but the batch-scrape scope and naming make the distinction straightforward.

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