Batch status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the result shape (verdict, score, reasons per lead), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about read-only safety, rate limits on polling, pagination behavior, or what 'progress' means for an in-flight batch.

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 no filler, and the payload contents are stated up front. Efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns; it partially does by naming verdict, score, and reasons per lead. It omits polling/terminal-state semantics and pagination behavior for limit and offset, leaving an agent without enough to call it confidently in all cases.

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% and the description never mentions id, limit, or offset. The required id and the paging controls are left entirely to infer from bare types and constraints, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 the resource (a batch) and what is returned (progress and results), which is a clear, specific read purpose. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling check_batch, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which of the two to call.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus check_batch, no indication of polling cadence, and no stated prerequisite such as needing a batch id from an earlier submission. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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