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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds valuable behavioral detail: 'A bad id fails only its own entry — check each "ok"', which discloses partial failure semantics not present in annotations. No contradiction.

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 sentences with no waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the alternative and a failure-behavior note. Every clause 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?

Given the tool's complexity (batch read, partial failure) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential points: what it does, when to use an alternative, and failure handling. The 50-item limit is in the schema, so no need to repeat. Nothing critical is missing.

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 50% (mode has a description, pageIds does not). The description clarifies that pageIds are ids and can be mixed, adding context beyond the schema. However, it does not elaborate on the mode parameter or its effect, leaving some semantics to the schema reference ('As in get_page').

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 states a specific action ('Read several pages/rows by id in one call') with a clear resource and scope. It distinguishes itself from get_page (single) and query_database (filtered) by emphasizing batch retrieval for a known, mixed id list.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative (query_database) and gives the condition for when to use it instead ('For rows of one database use query_database with filters/fields instead: one query, not N lookups'). This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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