meta get catalog batch status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description is fully consistent with them. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by warning that a successfully accepted batch can still contain per-item failures.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and object, followed by a meaningful warning. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

For a read-only, idempotent status-check tool with fully documented parameters and an output schema, the description covers the critical operational nuance (per-item failures may exist even after acceptance). Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3; the schema already explains the batch handle, catalog ID, and ad account ID. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond tying the whole operation to the batch handle.

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 names a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('completion and per-item errors for a catalog batch handle'), and a key nuance that distinguishes it from catalog product queries: acceptance is not proof of success. This clearly sets it apart from sibling tools like meta_get_catalog_products.

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 gives clear context: it is for inspecting a catalog batch handle after submission, with the explicit warning to verify per-item results because batch acceptance alone is insufficient. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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