batchQueryTaxReports

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

Annotations cover readOnly/openWorld, but the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: `url` is only populated at status 2, it is a JSON-encoded string of Files/Basepath, `queryId` appears at batch creation and can exist at pending (0), and batchId is validated against the authenticated user. This is exactly the kind of status/ownership context an agent needs.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by behavioral detail. Every sentence conveys usable semantics (polling interval, status/url relationship, queryId timing, auth check); slightly dense but not padded.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the returned child-task fields (status codes, url content, queryId) and their conditional population. Combined with the annotations, an agent has enough to invoke and interpret the call correctly.

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% for the single batchId param, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by noting that batchId is checked against the authenticated user context (an ownership constraint) and that identifiers are issued at batch creation, though it stops short of explaining where to obtain batchId.

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 ('Query all child export tasks in a tax report batch') with explicit scope ('including their statuses and download URLs'). An agent can distinguish it from batchCreateTaxReports, createTaxReport, and getTaxReportStatus without opening schemas.

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?

Gives a polling cadence ('recommended interval of 30 seconds') and references the legacy `url` endpoint, which implies the polling context. However, it never states when to pick this over getTaxReportStatus or getTaxReportUrl, so the usage boundary with siblings is left to inference.

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