spidra_check_batch_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: returns per-URL statuses, defines terminal vs in-progress states, and warns that completed batches can still contain failed items—key nuances for interpreting the result.

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 three sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose, then efficiently explains status categories and an important exception. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple read-only tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: status meaning, return contents, and a critical edge case. It is self-contained and actionable without being verbose.

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 parameter description already explains batchId is returned by spidra_batch_scrape. The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond restating that connection, so it aligns with the baseline for well-covered schemas.

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?

Description clearly states 'Check the status of a batch scrape by batchId', identifying the specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling spidra_check_scrape_status by explicitly saying 'batch' and detailing what it returns (per-URL statuses, results).

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?

Provides clear usage context by tying batchId to spidra_batch_scrape and explaining status semantics (in-progress vs terminal). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the singular purpose and batch-specific language implicitly guide correct selection.

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