Get batch status

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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false), so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that status includes item counts and waitingForPerson, which is useful, but it doesn't disclose pagination, freshness, or error behavior when the id is unknown.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and identifier, with zero filler. The parenthetical 'waitingForPerson' is jargon but functions as a field name, which is acceptable in a one-line definition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a one-parameter read tool the description supplies enough to call it correctly, with the only gap being when to prefer the item/error siblings.

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 0% and the single parameter is named 'id', yet the description calls it 'taskId' — a partial clarification of what the id refers to, but the mismatch in naming could cause confusion. It does not state format, source, or whether the id is the batch id returned by batch_scrape.

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 ('Read') and resource ('batch's status') plus the fields returned (state, item counts, waitingForPerson). It distinguishes itself reasonably from get_batch_items and get_batch_errors by framing itself as the status view, though it never names those siblings 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite many close siblings (get_batch_items, get_batch_errors, wait_batch, batch_scrape). The agent must infer from the noun 'status' that this is the lightweight polling call rather than the item/error detail calls.

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