Hunter Personal Batch Status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must inform about behavioral traits. It only says 'Get ... progress' and does not disclose read-only nature, auth requirements, rate limits, or error handling for invalid task IDs.

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?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. It is concise with no wasted words, though a bit too brief for a complete understanding.

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 tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description should mention that it is a polling endpoint for progress tracking. It omits return values, expected polling behavior, and error conditions, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 100% with one parameter well-described in the schema as 'Task ID returned by hunter_personal_batch_create.' The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage but not compensating for any gaps.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'Hunter personal batch task progress,' making the tool's purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like hunter_enterprise_batch_status, but the name and parameter hint at personal account usage.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., enterprise batch status or batch create). The description does not mention polling prerequisites or that the task_id must come from hunter_personal_batch_create, though this is implied by the schema.

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