ingest_batch_api_poll

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: PII redaction and identity stitching. However, it lacks details on side effects like idempotency, overwrite behavior, or what happens on duplicate entries. The output schema exists but is not referenced.

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?

The description is two sentences, concise and without redundancy. It front-loads the main purpose and then adds processing details. Minor improvement could be structuring with bullets or clarifying the batch nature.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is insufficient. It omits parameter formats, usage examples, and explicit correlation to the output schema. Though output schema exists, the description does not leverage it to reduce burden.

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 0% for 4 parameters. The description provides high-level context (CRM profiles, PII redaction) but does not explain individual parameters like 'crm_lead_id', 'payload_json', or 'source_platform'. Agents cannot map the description to each parameter effectively.

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 clearly states the verb 'ingests' and the resource 'heavy, non-real-time data (CRM profiles)' with destination 'on-disk Cold Storage'. It also mentions PII redaction and identity stitching, providing specific functionality. It distinguishes from real-time tools like 'ingest_realtime_webhook' by emphasizing non-real-time batch processing.

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 implies usage for non-real-time data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like 'ingest_realtime_webhook' or 'export_to_data_warehouse'. No when-not scenarios or prerequisites are provided, leaving the agent to infer context.

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