get_batch_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real value by disclosing the return shape (state, addresses processed, per-status counts) and the 'once available' nuance that some fields are absent until processing progresses. It stops short of stating behavior for an unknown/expired batchId.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the return payload in a compact enumerated form. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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, the description carries the return-value burden and does so adequately by naming the state enum and the count fields. It is slightly incomplete on failure semantics (invalid or expired batchId) and on whether repeated calls are expected while queued.

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 schema description already explains that batchId is the value returned by verify_batch, so the description need not repeat it. It adds nothing about parameter syntax or provenance beyond the schema, which is the correct baseline-3 outcome for a single fully documented parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') plus resource ('bulk verification batch') and enumerates exactly what is returned: lifecycle state with its four possible values, addresses processed, and per-status counts. It never names get_batch_results explicitly, so the status-vs-results distinction must be inferred from the wording rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the schema notes batchId comes from verify_batch, which tells the agent this is a follow-up call, and the word 'progress' suggests polling while processing. There is no explicit when-to-use versus get_batch_results, and no guidance on whether to poll, how often, or what to do on a failed batch.

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