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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the possible progress states, that results are returned in input order, and that view controls normalized vs output results — details the annotations cannot convey.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the primary outcome (progress + results) before paging and REST details. Nothing is redundant, though the parenthetical field list is slightly cramped.

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 by listing the result fields and their ordering. It also flags the REST alternative for bulk downloads. Minor gap: batch ID format and what a 'not_run' or partial batch looks like are left implicit.

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 75%, so most parameters are self-documenting, and the description reinforces the offset/limit paging model and hints at the 'view' enum via 'normalized result (or output)'. The required batch_id has no description in either place, and no parameter receives additional format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource — retrieving a batch's progress plus a page of its results — and enumerates the returned fields (index, input, status, result, error). It is easy to tell apart from run_batch and get_run from the text alone, though no sibling is named 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?

Pagination guidance ('Page with offset/limit') and the alternative REST download route for full result sets give implied usage context. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus sibling tools such as get_run or run_batch, so the guidance remains inferred.

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