goodnotes_batch_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value by enumerating the return payload categories (progress, receipts, backup paths, errors), which matters because no output schema exists; it stops short of describing error shapes or size/pagination behavior.

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 sentences with the outcome-oriented content front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is terse to the point of being cryptic, but it is not wasted.

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 is the only source of return-value information, and it gives categories without detail on what a 'receipt' contains or how errors are surfaced. For a read-only two-parameter status tool this is adequate but not complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. 'Inputs omitted by default' does clarify the default state of includeInputs, but it never explains what 'inputs' are or why an agent would set the flag true, and jobId is left entirely to the schema's uuid pattern.

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 ('Read') and a concrete resource set (batch progress, receipts, backup paths, errors), which is clearly narrower than sibling status tools like goodnotes_operation_status or goodnotes_run_batch. It does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer, so differentiation relies on inference.

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?

'after interruption' implies the usage context (resuming/inspecting a stalled batch), which is real but implicit guidance. There is no explicit when-not clause or named alternative for checking a running batch versus a batch job's plan.

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