batch_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that polling is incremental and that page content is omitted by default unless include_content is set. It does not mention terminal states or result expiration, but the core behavior is disclosed.

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?

Three tightly written sentences. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by the essential polling mechanics and then the content flag tradeoff. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 polling tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description explains how to poll, how to resume incrementally, and how to request full content. It could say more about completion semantics or response shape, but the critical usage information is present.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the semantics of since and include_content, but these meanings are already present in the schema. It adds incremental contextual framing rather than wholly new parameter information.

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 and resource: 'Poll a batch job for progress and per-URL results.' This distinguishes it from sibling status tools like crawl_status or collector_run_status by tying it specifically to batch jobs.

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 explicit polling workflow guidance: polls are incremental and the previous response's nextCursor should be passed as since. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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