Get batch status

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety bar is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a hard cap of 5000 ids per call, and the important silent-filtering rule that ids you don't own are omitted rather than erroring. 'Free' also discloses that calls are not billed, which is not derivable from any structured field.

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 tight sentences with zero filler: return fields first, then the invocation modes and limits. Every clause carries information, and nothing is buried.

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, listing the returned fields in the description is exactly the right compensation, and the 5000-id cap plus ownership omission rule cover the main edge cases. Minor gaps remain around what is returned for ids that don't exist versus ids not owned, but the definition is sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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% and the maxItems=5000 constraint is already in the schema, so baseline would be 3. The description earns an extra point by documenting the one-vs-many mutual exclusivity and the ownership-filtering semantics, neither of which is expressed in the schema itself.

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 resource (batch jobs) and enumerates the returned fields (status, total_photos, succeeded, failed, pending), and explicitly covers both the single and bulk retrieval modes. It stops short of naming how it differs from siblings like list_batches or get_batch_photos, which is left to 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?

'Pass batch_id for one, or batch_ids ... for many at once' gives clear parameter-selection guidance for the two modes. However, it offers no when-to-use framing against list_batches or get_batch_photos, and no prerequisites, so the routing decision between status-checking tools is only implied.

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