batch_results

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: pagination is handled server-side so the full list is returned, and result_url values are short-lived presigned links that expire and must be downloaded promptly.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with pagination behavior, then the time-sensitive warning about expiring links. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 compensates by describing the returned row shape and the ephemeral result_url, plus the bounding behavior (returns full list). Nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents job_id and the status filter with its default. The description names the row fields (task_id, external_id, status, result_url) but adds no detail about the job_id or status parameters themselves; 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 and resource ('List result rows for a Batch job'), which clearly separates it from siblings batch_create, batch_status, batch_cancel, and batch_wait. It does not explicitly name any sibling, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 implied – list results of a job – but there is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus polling batch_status or batch_wait first, nor any stated prerequisite that the job must have relevant result rows.

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