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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive, closed-world write, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavior beyond them: the 200-row limit, the paid-plan requirement, per-row partial failure, and the `ok` field in each result. Missing detail on rate limits or ordering of results.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and limit, then the row contract, then failure semantics. 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?

With no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: batch size, plan gate, row semantics, and partial-failure reporting via `ok`. Could be complete by noting ordering or how to identify which rows failed.

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 100% and the row shape is spelled out in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. 'Each row takes the same fields as a single create' restates what the schema already documents and adds no new syntax or constraints.

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 a specific verb and resource plus the batch scope and hard ceiling ('Create up to 200 QR codes in one call'). This implicitly separates it from qrs_create/qrs_create_url, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives one gating prerequisite ('paid plans') and implies the bulk use case, but never states when to prefer this over qrs_create or what to do for a single code. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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