get_extraction_batch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the batch is 'bounded', the return fields, and that the text is untrusted corpus data. It is silent, however, on whether fetching consumes/reserves the documents, ordering, idempotency, or concurrency behavior — important traits for a batch-claim tool.

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 tightly written sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the return/safety information following. No filler or redundancy.

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 values need not be re-explained, and the untrusted-data warning is a good addition. But with no annotations and an undocumented required run_id, the definition leaves gaps for a tool that feeds an extraction pipeline.

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% and there are two parameters. The description explains 'limit' ('Returns up to limit documents') but says nothing about the required 'run_id', leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 ('Obtain a bounded work batch of ingested documents awaiting host agent structured signal extraction') and clarifies what is returned. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like submit_extracted_signals or retry_extraction, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 by the pipeline framing ('documents awaiting host agent structured signal extraction'), suggesting the agent calls this to fetch work and then submits results. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of the paired submit tool, and no stated prerequisites such as a valid run_id.

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