get_batch_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds valuable behavioral context: it's a polling operation, status transitions (pending, started, finished), and the response_body_url condition. However, it doesn't mention idempotency or rate limits, which are minor gaps.

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?

Well-structured with paragraphs, Args/Returns sections, and an example. Front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise. Minor redundancy in the returns section (e.g., repeated 'finished' status).

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 the output schema exists, the description adequately explains return fields and usage pattern. However, the missing account parameter and lack of error handling or edge cases (e.g., what if batch_id is invalid?) reduce completeness. Adequate but not thorough.

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%, so description must compensate. It thoroughly explains batch_id (format, source, example) but completely ignores the optional account parameter. This is a significant omission for a tool with undocumented schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Check the progress and completion status of an asynchronous batch operation.' It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('batch operation'), and distinguishes from siblings by referencing create_batch and list_batches.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use after create_batch to poll for completion. Call repeatedly until status is finished. Do not use for non-batch operations. Use list_batches to see all recent batch operations.' This clearly states when to use, when not to use, and alternatives.

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